 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2017-07-18 06:14
Honestly, I see enough of these topics on social media and news sites...I come to this forum to discuss things we have in common - not to focus on the things which pull us apart. (Though Buffet vs Yamaha can get pretty heated now-a-days! ;^)>>> )
Cheers,
Fuzzy
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Carmelo
Date: 2017-07-18 06:18
It is sad, the musicians are there to perform music for the public and are getting compensated for it. Does not matter who the conductor is or non-conductor.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2017-07-18 06:33
fuzzy wrote:
> Honestly, I see enough of these topics on social media and
> news sites...I come to this forum to discuss things we have
> in common - not to focus on the things which pull us apart.
As you know, we occasionally have OT threads concerning musicians and orchestras going on strike or refusing to play for various reasons.
It's important for those contemplating an orchestral career to see the factors which may interfere with their desire to perform.
No discussion of specific politics is necessary, but rather the question of whether musicians should honor the stated request.
...GBK
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2017-07-18 06:56
I do understand, GBK...and for that reason, I don't really feel that the issue is "off-topic" at all.
That said, it is still rather depressing to leave the other political/news sites (which are full of such vitriolic news), and to come here to find more of it.
Yes, the ugly world does sometimes demand attention from us in this forum. I can understand that fact without agreeing as to its appearance or welcoming it in with a deep bow and flourish of the wrist. I'll just sit on the other side of the room, hurling nasty stares its way...hoping it withdraws itself sometime soon. ;^)>>>
Warmest Regards,
Fuzzy
|
|
|
|
|
Author: RBlack
Date: 2017-07-18 08:20
The part that I really do not understand is the reasoning behind bringing on an "non-conductor" to conduct a concert. I cannot imagine the rational which led to this definitively controversial situation (no matter what you may think politically).
Is there something I have missed here?
Robin
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2017-07-18 10:33
I've read the letter and it appears to me that the protest is by a whole group of 'snowflakes' who cannot abide someone conducting them that has views and opinions that are not in line with their own 'left wing progressivness' There , I've added a political statement to this BB. But I do agree with Fuzzy generally. Much rather read things that we are really interested in. Such as OBOES !
Oppsy daisy. Wrong BB. Much rather read things that we are really interested in . Such as CLARINETS !
Skyfacer
Post Edited (2017-07-18 10:52)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: rmk54
Date: 2017-07-18 16:20
Mr. Vincent,
What if they brought in Keith Ellison to conduct?
I suspect your fractalness would increase exponentially.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: dorjepismo ★2017
Date: 2017-07-18 17:00
Well - glad we live in a time and place where musicians can speak up about stuff like this. It hasn't been all that common in the history of music.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2017-07-18 17:04
I do wish that, if people are going to discuss political issues here, they could do it without resorting to pejorative terms like "snowflake" to make their points. If an argument has merit, it won't need name calling to provide its strength.
Karl
|
|
|
|
|
Author: ClarinetRobt
Date: 2017-07-18 19:17
I have a sneaking feeling there's about to an opening for a conductor with the Santa Monica Symphony. If this was all done for charity or something, I'd understand. But the article comes across as he was asked because it'd be a hoot.
If the guest conductor doesn't share the organization's core values, you'd think the guest conductor wouldn't want to apart of something that contradicts his own moral compass. Regardless if I personally agree or not.
Why would anyone stand in front of group that openly loathes you. What's to be gained? Unless it's a political stunt to appear kinder and gentler in front of a bunch of fluffy frozen precipitation.
~Robt L Schwebel
Mthpc: Behn Vintage
Lig: Ishimori, Behn Delrin
Reed: Legere French Cut 3.75/4, Behn Brio 4
Horns: Uebel Superior (Bb,A), Ridenour Lyrique, Buffet R13 (Eb)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2017-07-18 19:30
Lets face it folks..musicians are not there for there opinion. On the contrary they are to be heard musicially and with the war against unions and the current slow down in audience participation classical music is in a very bad way. Right to collective bargain is heading out the window as well...
David Dow
|
|
|
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2017-07-18 20:00
Quote:
The part that I really do not understand is the reasoning behind bringing on an "non-conductor" to conduct a concert.
The NY Phil brought in non-conductor Gilbert Kaplan to do Mahler 2 a few years ago (I remember musicians complaining to the Times). I guess with enough money, celebrity, or, in the case of Santa Monica, shared political ideology, anything's possible.
Quote:
The sad outcome when politics meets music...
But art is always bound up with politics; and bracketing off the two is itself a political maneuver. Among many others, the great literary critic Terry Eagleton writes extensively about this sort of compartmentalizing in his book of essays on Irish art and politics.
We seem happy to do the bracketing when we enjoy the music: downplaying or ignoring, for example, Wagner's anti-Semitism, Strauss's involvement with the Nazi party, Prokofiev's occasional Soviet propaganda pieces (or, alternately, the lack of contemporary composers, especially women and non-whites, in orchestral programming). Prager, however, isn't a great artist or even a mediocre artist: he's a hack radio "intellectual." I see the Santa Monica thing, then, not just as a mixture of politics and music, which, again, is always the case, but as an aggressively stupid version of it. So good on the musicians for refusing to participate in this nonsense.
Post Edited (2017-07-18 20:02)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2017-07-18 20:28
Well, if you're thinking about a career as a professional musician...here's some more to think about:
Perhaps not Keith Ellison, but Charlie Rose (I don't remember the call for boycotts)
Guest Conductor
Guest Conductor Auction
Another Type of Auction
Even when I was in high school - we'd have "guest conductors" who were nothing more than other students dressed up as one celebrity or another - doing all sorts of antics - making the audience howl with laughter. The musicians were nothing more than a backdrop. The music we had worked so hard on all year was missed entirely. None of us knew such "guest conductors" would be there to turn our hard work into a laugh track.
Likewise, in college, it was common on the night of the concert that some "famous" conductor would swoop in and wave the baton around (some were quite good), but would go largely ignored - as we mostly continued playing in the style we had been trained to play during the previous eight weeks.
It really doesn't matter whom the guest conductor is...nor does it really matter whether the band/orchestra is used as nothing more than a laugh track. The important issue is...are the tickets being sold, are the seats being filled, and is the audience happy/properly affected when they leave? That's it. Musicians are performers. Music is a performance art. While we are very fortunate to reap esteem, a certain amount of pride, and beauty in the role we usually get to play - there are other times we're the platform, the laugh track, the inconsequential. Thus is life...no matter the vocation.
To those offended by whomever a guest conductor might be, I'd say: "Not everything in this world is about you personally. As a professional musician it is your JOB to come to work and play the music you are told to play, the way you are told to play it, and in the environment provided. If you do not like what you are told to play, the way you're told to play it, or the environment provided, you are free to leave and find a more suitable fit. Until then, do your job."
Professional musicians are employees. As employees, the duty is to produce the product, provide the service. It's not very romantic, but it is what it is.
[edit] - fixed final two words
Post Edited (2017-07-18 20:46)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: dorjepismo ★2017
Date: 2017-07-18 21:05
"Professional musicians are employees. As employees, the duty is to produce the product, provide the service. It's not very romantic, but it is what is it."
A person's duty is what he/she decides it is and is willing to bear the consequences for. It isn't for us to tell these people what their duty is. Music is an art, decent musicians are artists, and it is widely, though not universally, recognized that artists have cultural responsibilities that can go far beyond the simple transaction of selling their "product." Mozart had a duty to write an opera for Prague, and as part of that, he filled the stage with people singing "Viva la liberta." Shostakovitch had a duty to write socialist realism numbers for Stalin, and filled them with cryptic references to the repression of individuality and the subversion of ideals by authoritarianism. Brycon's right; music frequently has political implications. Anyone who heard John Adams's introduction to the second half of his first concert with Berlin last year knows that the tradition is alive, well, and not especially interested in the market telling it what its duty is.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2017-07-18 21:21
Quote:
It really doesn't matter whom the guest conductor is...nor does it really matter whether the band/orchestra is used as nothing more than a laugh track. The important issue is...are the tickets being sold, are the seats being filled, and is the audience happy/properly affected when they leave? That's it. Musicians are performers. Music is a performance art. While we are very fortunate to reap esteem, a certain amount of pride, and beauty in the role we usually get to play - there are other times we're the platform, the laugh track, the inconsequential. Thus is life...no matter the vocation.
But music is an art, not a form of entertainment (while it does entertain, music, for me at least, also does something more). Moreover, the symphony orchestra is a particular cultural institution; it does different things for a city than the local movie theater, rock venue, etc. Orchestras, if I remember correctly, raise only between one-third to half their budget by way of ticket sales. It isn't, therefore, a simple matter of "are the seats being filled, is the audience happy..." Grants, endowments, and donations also make up a large portion of their budget (which makes catering toward movement conservatives, who are often philistine anti-elitists, an unusual form of fundraising).
Quote:
As a professional musician it is your JOB to come to work and play the music you are told to play, the way you are told to play it, and in the environment provided. If you do not like what you are told to play, the way you're told to play it, or the environment provided, you are free to leave and find a more suitable fit. Until then, do your job."
But orchestras engage with the community in a much different way than other businesses. Like universities and museums, they're non-profits; so wishing that they were run along Ayn Randian lines doesn't make much sense. Would you say, for instance, "colleges should just shut up, make sure people are ready to work, and give out the degree"? In one sense, there is a transactional element to college. But in another sense, it isn't a freaking trade school.
Quote:
Professional musicians are employees. As employees, the duty is to produce the product, provide the service. It's not very romantic, but it is what it is.
But university professors, professional musicians, museum curators, etc. aren't the same thing as a Walmart cashier (no knock on Walmart, just using it for comparison's sake). To insist on the comparison, in all its aspects, is lazy thinking.
Post Edited (2017-07-18 21:47)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: nellsonic
Date: 2017-07-18 22:24
As I recall, this is a well established community orchestra, not a professional one. How does that affect your pronouncements?
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2017-07-18 23:21
William,
Quote:
A person's duty is what he/she decides it is and is willing to bear the consequences for. It isn't for us to tell these people what their duty is.
I agree entirely! That decision was made by the musician when the musician signed the line to provide a duty/service in exchange for whatever it is they wanted. I had no role in telling them what they could or couldn't do - nor would I want such a role. It was a free market exchange they willingly entered into.
Brycon & William:
At the time of signing an agreement, or agreeing to participate - that's when the "artist" becomes an employee. Much like a sculptor being commissioned to create a specific piece of art. Once the contract/agreement is signed - he/she is limited to produce that which was agreed upon in advance. There's still freedom. There's still art. However, the person now must produce the agreed upon product in the agreed upon time frame - and possibly even in the agreed upon environment. There's always the option to back out and forego the payment.
That's where my problem is with this particular issue. The musicians state, "It is not fair to put orchestra members in the position of having to decide between their deeply-held social and political values and their commitment to the orchestra." - yet they are doing the exact same thing by suggesting the boycott. Why not live and let live? The musician is the one who agreed to the exchange of her/his services for the funds/benefits/whatever. Walk away if it is no longer a good agreement. Don't burn the place down and make others pay - simply because they believe differently than you. Fulfill your agreement, then leave.
Brycon:
"Music is art" - and thus the eternal question - how does the artist fill her/his belly? The struggle between commercialism and the artist. We can squabble forever about where that line is drawn. Personally, I've found it much easier to avoid the pretense of considering "artists" as being any different from employees (and no, I wouldn't call that lazy thinking - I find it to be factual. Differing views don't automatically make the opposing viewpoint "lazy" or "wrong"). Quote:
"But music is an art, not a form of entertainment (while it does entertain, music, for me at least, also does something more)." - a simple matter of opinion on which we disagree. There isn't a right or wrong answer here - only those who agree or disagree. Such agreement or disagreement will usually be based on personal experiences.
If we're talking about "art" and not "work" - it wouldn't matter what time we show up, which form of music we (individually) decide to play, or whether one jumps up in the middle of someone else's concerto and starts improvising. Dress code wouldn't matter. Of course it is work, and of course there are limits to the individual "artist" in a group. Folks must abide by the rules of those who employ them.
An artist can go without agreements and avoid those limits - and sell their delimited art in the shop or on the corner. The musician can busk on the street - only limited by the laws of the city. However, the artist frequently trades unregulated art in exchange for comfort, for known quantity. The musicians made that trade. There's something to be said for Chuck Jone's "The Dot and the Line: A Romance in Lower Mathematics" ;^)>>>
I have intended no political thoughts going either left or right. I live in the USA, a (nearly) free market and capitalist system. Since the group in question also resides in the USA, my statements have been made in that light.
Nelsonic (just saw your post):
I'm sorry to have missed that fact. GBK had said, "It's important for those contemplating an orchestral career to see the factors which may interfere with their desire to perform." - so I had assumed we were talking about paid playing.
However, while it means some of my points will have missed their mark, it really doesn't affect my pronouncement that much. If I have entered into an agreement - then I have entered into an agreement and should perform my end of the agreement to fruition. Whether I have offered my services in exchange for $100k or $0 - that doesn't change the agreement, and morally shouldn't change my dedication or fulfillment of that agreement. If someone volunteers to help you, but then complains and throws fits every time you ask them to help - what good was their offer to help?
Either you want to play in the Orchestra, or you don't. Having guest conductors is part of playing in an Orchestra. Sometimes you'll love the guest, sometimes you might hate the guest...either way - your obligation would remain the same.
I've basically had this exact experience happen to me, by the way. I was part of a (non-paying) community band. I didn't agree with much of what happened, and was very irritated by one specific guest conductor, and one guest singer - but I had agreed to play for the full year - which I did to the fullest of my abilities. At the end of the year, I left and didn't return. No muss. No fuss. Obligation fulfilled. The band provided me a chance to play, and I provided my services to the fullest extent possible. Agreement fulfilled by both parties.
It seems (as a society) we're increasingly not only offended, but feel the need to make sure everyone else knows we're offended...and maybe even pays for offending us.
I miss the times when we buckled down, did our job to our fullest abilities, and let others do the same.
This is my last post on the issue, as I'm breathing life into the monster that I said I'd cast ugly stares at. 
My intention is not to flame-and-run - so please feel free to contact me via e-mail if I've said or done anything inflammatory or necessitating a response.
GBK - your wisdom as to the importance of such a topic to the board members is well-noted. My hat is off to you!
|
|
|
|
|
Author: dorjepismo ★2017
Date: 2017-07-19 00:09
Fuzzy,
"- a simple matter of opinion on which we disagree." Clearly! Musicians have widely different views of what it is we're doing when we play and perform. It's a good thing to actually think that out for oneself, and act to the extent one can consistently with one's conclusions, and also to respect others who do the same thing for themselves. Whether such a thing as "artistic integrity" exists separate from what one is paid can be equally obvious to people with diametrically opposed opinions. To someone who believes in such a thing, though, all obligations are not fixed by entering into a contract to play something for someone, nor is the right to express one's opinions about an employer's actions precluded by that. A contract covers what it covers and doesn't what it doesn't, and nearly everyone recognizes obligations more important than contracts, just not in the same places. Playing in an orchestra doesn't and shouldn't entail adopting the moral code of Bartertown from "Beyond Thunderdome." The arts have always involved an interplay between money people who want to call all the shots and people with actual talent who take the money but do as much of what they really want to as they can get away with. A surprising number of the latter get away with quite a bit, because in the end, that's where the best stuff comes from. If the only music we had came from people whose main concern was to give employers exactly what they wanted, it wouldn't be worth a bucket of warm spit.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2017-07-19 00:54
Fuzzy,
Quote:
"Music is art" - and thus the eternal question - how does the artist fill her/his belly? The struggle between commercialism and the artist. We can squabble forever about where that line is drawn. Personally, I've found it much easier to avoid the pretense of considering "artists" as being any different from employees (and no, I wouldn't call that lazy thinking - I find it to be factual. Differing views don't automatically make the opposing viewpoint "lazy" or "wrong").
I didn't mean to imply your line of thought is lazy because I disagree with it: it's lazy because it's a form of reductionism, clumping together all human activity under the broad category of "employment."
Quote:
There isn't a right or wrong answer here - only those who agree or disagree. Such agreement or disagreement will usually be based on personal experiences.
Word. I've done gigs that felt like work--playing in a quartet for a corporate cocktail party, for example. But I've never performed in a symphony orchestra, one which bills itself as a serious ensemble and programs serious pieces, that's felt the same as the corporate gig: in the symphony, patrons are there to hear the musicians and the music; in the quartet gig, patrons are there to do their own thing and need some ambiance. Because of its broadness, your argument overlooks the distinction between the two--a distinction I imagine most musicians feel.
Moreover, it ignores history (again, another instance of non-political stances actually reflecting political ideology). There was a time when art worked in the way you describe: Shakespeare was a playwright--that is, someone who fashioned plays as a wheelwright fashioned wheels--and composers were paid to write works for specific occasions--liturgical, festival, political, etc. But Beethoven killed "useful" art. The Romantic and Modernist eras, by contrast, were highly elitist. And l'art pour l'art" still seems to be the norm in the realm of symphony orchestras. (Lydia Goehr, daughter of the composer Alexander, has a great book on how we philosophically arrived at the current state of classical music; it's called The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works.)
Quote:
If we're talking about "art" and not "work" - it wouldn't matter what time we show up, which form of music we (individually) decide to play, or whether one jumps up in the middle of someone else's concerto and starts improvising. Dress code wouldn't matter. Of course it is work, and of course there are limits to the individual "artist" in a group. Folks must abide by the rules of those who employ them.
This argument is weak sauce. Because you show up to rehearsal at a certain time and wear black to a concert doesn't mean playing in an orchestra is the same as working as a cashier at Walmart--again, the argument is reductionist. When I'm teaching a lesson, for example, I can wear whatever I like. Am I then not working? Or when I go downstairs to the bodega for a sandwich, I'm required to wear a shirt and shoes. Does that rule mean I am working? There are, in other words, various codes and "rules" at play throughout all areas of our society. Overlap will ensue; it doesn't mean, however, that every activity is fundamentally the same and therefore reducible to basic capitalistic market forces.
Quote:
It seems (as a society) we're increasingly not only offended, but feel the need to make sure everyone else knows we're offended...and maybe even pays for offending us.
I miss the times when we buckled down, did our job to our fullest abilities, and let others do the same.
I myself would have not played the gig (well, I wouldn't be playing in the first place because they don't pay) but also not made a fuss of not playing with the letter. But I understand the musician's sentiment. They aren't just playing for a conductor who stinks or has a crummy personality; they're playing for someone who isn't a musician and advocates for cutting the funding mechanism that allows for their orchestra to exist. (The whole thing is incredibly boneheaded on the part of the management.)
Post Edited (2017-07-19 07:53)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2017-07-19 01:06
Quote:
Playing in an orchestra doesn't and shouldn't entail adopting the moral code of Bartertown from "Beyond Thunderdome." The arts have always involved an interplay between money people who want to call all the shots and people with actual talent who take the money but do as much of what they really want to as they can get away with. A surprising number of the latter get away with quite a bit, because in the end, that's where the best stuff comes from. If the only music we had came from people whose main concern was to give employers exactly what they wanted, it wouldn't be worth a bucket of warm spit.
Nice! You're faster with the reply button; keep beating me to it.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2017-07-19 02:30
ClarinetRobt "---- a bunch of fluffy frozen precipitation" Love it.
Skyfacer
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2017-07-19 06:00
While my opinions in this area are generally similar to brycon's, in this particular case I think that since the concert is (apparently) not being used to promote the guest conductor's views, then the orchestra members should play as usual without trying to undermine the performance in any way. They are free to publish and promote their own differing views, and even call the guest conductor to account for his public statements, but they should not politicize a concert that isn't already political. Now, if the guest intends to make some speech outside the musical sphere at the concert, then that's different, though what the recourse would be I can't say.
The way it is, it unfortunately reminds me of the bakers refusing to make a wedding cake for people they disagreed with.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2017-07-19 18:07
It's like reading the Henry VI plays. By the time you've reached Part III, there are no sympathetic characters left.
My take: silly management decision, silly response. Walk out on the gig if you don't want to play. I've turned down two gigs for political reasons in the past two months or so. Big deal.
At least with Shakespeare you got the riveting death scene of John Talbot in Part I. This is just silly American ranting, which has become the nonsensical background, foreground, and surround sound static of our increasingly disintegrating culture. Meanwhile, a reductive, stupid, political whale swallows us whole.
With that in mind...here's Sidney Bechet playing "What a Dream"...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cwDDFygY4Q
There...don't you feel better now?
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Author: dorjepismo ★2017
Date: 2017-07-19 19:18
Yeah, I do. To a lot of the people who play in them, an orchestra or ongoing chamber group is a lot more than a given gig, whether it's a paying one or a community one. A lot of one's sense of identity can get mixed up with it, for better or worse. The extreme of this is Berlin, where the musicians run the orchestra and where, during a lot of the '20s and '30s, it didn't pay much; but even in situations where the conductor or the non-musician Board holds all the cards, this still happens, and over time, the sense of being part of something greater than one's own musical self-interest contributes to good orchestras becoming great ones and amateur ones starting to sound like professional ones. The mindset of conductors and management being demigods and musicians being the interchangeable hired help isn't what you see in the groups that are really good. It's really up to all the parties involved to understand that dynamic and put the interests of the ensemble above their own, and that includes the responsibility to exercise good judgment and consider others' sensibilities. If that breaks down on one side, sooner or later it will break down on another side too, not as a matter of economics, morality, professional ethics or mysticism, but because that's how the dynamic works.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Michael E. Shultz
Date: 2017-08-01 15:45
Here is Dennis Prager's statement on this matter:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267446/can-conservative-conduct-orchestra-dennis-prager
When I was in the University of Akron symphonic band, we had Authur Fiedler as a guest conductor.
We also had a guest conductor at Lake High School. We were performing at Geauga Lake amusement park. The student teacher saw that the mascot was pretending to conduct the band. He handed his baton to the mascot and let it conduct a song.
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2017-08-01 18:35
According to the Prager article, he's not going to use the occasion to speak, but simply to conduct, and that's something he's done elsewhere a number of times before.
There's arenas where people can debate ideas. A concert doesn't need to be one of them. I don't think it is appropriate for orchestra members to sabotage the engagement by asking the public to not attend.
If people have problems with Prager's public statements, they should counter them with their own in appropriate forums. Further, they are free to personally disassociate themselves from him, though in professional contexts they better be ready to absorb backlash, such as getting fired for missing work.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Johan H Nilsson
Date: 2017-08-03 14:59
Get used to it. This is a part and parcel of living in a leftist society.
Pol Pot could have conducted (with perhaps Paul Potts singing) and no one would have complained.
This forum will eventually be eaten up by angry leftists too. I'm not kidding.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2017-08-03 19:37
Quote:
Get used to it. This is a part and parcel of living in a leftist society.
Pol Pot could have conducted (with perhaps Paul Potts singing) and no one would have complained.
This forum will eventually be eaten up by angry leftists too. I'm not kidding.
At my Ludovico technique leftist reeducation camp, I used to fall asleep to the dulcet tones of Pol Pot; loved his album Pol Pot in an Ascot Plays Lots of Bach Gavottes.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: dorjepismo ★2017
Date: 2017-08-03 23:38
Unless I'm missing something, the right-wing guy is still scheduled to conduct, and he's used the controversy to do an op-ed to express his views on the musicians and the society in general. So, what right-wingers are upset about is Americans exercising their First Amendment rights to complain about something they don't like, which is exactly what the right-wingers are doing. What, controlling the federal and most of the state governments isn't enough? Having to listen to people who don't like right-wing stuff somehow turns the country into Communist Cambodia and makes right-wingers victims of the vast international leftist conspiracy? Come on. It's pretty disingenuous to blame liberals for polluting this particular thread with propaganda. Count the posts on one side and the other.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Johan H Nilsson
Date: 2017-08-04 00:41
No conservatives or libertarians have expanded politics into previously sacred areas. This is a leftist only movement. There is no wonder that it always ends up with totalitarianism.
I know these kinds of guys. First, they couldn't respect someone's opinion or factual claims. Secondly, they couldn't respect him in a role that had nothing to do with his opinions or factual claims. Thirdly, they didn't respect the orchestra's and its members decision to have the concert and therefore called for a boycott from the audience. Their self-experienced sense of 'goodness' is unlimited and therefore also their willingness to 'fight'.
It says itself that if there are too many people of this kind in a society it will not be functional. It will rather look like the Soviet Union and GDR did with their control mania. Both the story and the fact that we are having this discussion in this forum is a true sign of a society in decay.
Let's hope there is a big enough critical mass of users on this forum that will not let politics enter it.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2017-08-04 01:58
Quote:
Unless I'm missing something, the right-wing guy is still scheduled to conduct, and he's used the controversy to do an op-ed to express his views on the musicians and the society in general.
I take it you didn't miss the bits of Prager's article where he admonishes orchestra members along political lines? (e.g. The musicians refusing to play are "real haters," who "attempt to shut conservatives out of every form of intellectual and artistic endeavor"; should we be surprised, then, that these haters are of that villainous sort of "academics who are giving universities their reputation for illiberal close-mindedness.")
Quote:
According to the Prager article, he's not going to use the occasion to speak, but simply to conduct, and that's something he's done elsewhere a number of times before.
There's arenas where people can debate ideas. A concert doesn't need to be one of them. I don't think it is appropriate for orchestra members to sabotage the engagement by asking the public to not attend.
If people have problems with Prager's public statements, they should counter them with their own in appropriate forums. Further, they are free to personally disassociate themselves from him, though in professional contexts they better be ready to absorb backlash, such as getting fired for missing work.
Philip, you posted something similar before the thread got bumped. I took issue with it but didn't respond. Here's the problem with your thought:
The event isn't stripped of political meanings simply because Prager isn't going to speak. Again, you're engaging in a sort of bracketing that exists only in the mind.
To take another example, if you were sitting in the audience for a performance of Beethoven 9 by the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra, would you simply think "Wow, Beethoven's really pretty"? Would the mixture of Israeli and Palestinian instrumentalists or the founding figures of Barenboim and Edward Said not matter? I think, of course, that these things would matter. You, like most people, would probably understand the concert as some sort of statement on politics in the Middle East even though no overt political speech was being made.
Small additional quibble:
Quote:
The way it is, it unfortunately reminds me of the bakers refusing to make a wedding cake for people they disagreed with.
Absolutely not. In terms of public accommodation, not allowing Prager to purchase a ticket to attend the concert would be the analogue of refusing to bake a cake.
Quote:
No conservatives or libertarians have expanded politics into previously sacred areas. This is a leftist only movement. There is no wonder that it always ends up with totalitarianism.
Johan, you mean except for this concert, right?
Well, putting aside the nonsensical attitude that politics and art shouldn't intermingle, the towering figures of T.S. Eliot and Tolkien are claimed as conservative writers (not in the anti-intellectual movement conservative sense, of course). And Ezra Pound wrote right-wing authoritarian poems while imprisoned in Italy.
You might be correct, however, about modern conservatism being largely absent from the arts: the anti-elitism, anti-intellectualism, antagonism toward marginalized people, opposition to public arts funding, and lack of nuance in thought that characterizes movement conservatism isn't particularly prized in the fine arts, though it does produce such work as Ayn Rand, Ted Nugent, and Jon McNaughton.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2017-08-04 04:20
Do supporters of the protest agree that Prager should not have been invited, and that audience members should boycott the performance? Then, what public activities should this man, who apparently made no public political connection with the engagement before the protest, be allowed to do? And which, like this orchestral guest spot, should he not? How do you decide?
|
|
|
|
|
Author: dorjepismo ★2017
Date: 2017-08-04 07:22
Philip: no, supporters of the musicians who made their statement, if they agree on anything, agree on the proposition that the musicians have as much right to express their opinions and try to influence organizations they belong to as anyone else. Don't really know squat about Prager or the particulars of the Santa Monica group. Do know that op-eds and partisan statements of any kind tend to be self-serving, and omit any facts and considerations that don't support whatever they're trying to convince people of, so you can't really trust any of them, regardless of political orientation. Thing about community orchestras, though, of which this group appears to be one, is that their entire purpose is to provide a conducive environment for their members to make music. Somehow, some folks there seemed to have lost sight of that. Personally play with conservatives all the time. We get along just fine and nobody gets into political BS. Start conspicuously getting into that, and you're going to tick people off. Cause and effect is not a leftist conspiracy.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2017-08-04 10:40
Quote:
Do supporters of the protest agree that Prager should not have been invited...
Absolutely, he shouldn't have been invited. As I wrote earlier, it was a rather stupid choice on the part of the management.
Quote:
and that audience members should boycott the performance?
The audience members can certainly decide for themselves. My view of the concert is similar to how I feel about the recent protests surrounding conservative personalities speaking at colleges. Someone like Milo Yiannopoulus (spelling?) should never be invited to speak at a prestigious college: I wager he's never held a thought worthy of serious attention; moreover, his stupidity (and that of others like him) drowns out serious conservative thinkers and have turned a once-great intellectual tradition into a joke. But he was invited by a student group, which apparently has the power to do such things. And if people want to protest the invite for the above reasons, though I myself would probably just not show up rather than protest, they have the power to do such things.
Quote:
Then, what public activities should this man, who apparently made no public political connection with the engagement before the protest, be allowed to do? And which, like this orchestral guest spot, should he not? How do you decide?
He's free to pursue whatever activity he likes; I'm certainly not one to begrudge someone his/her dreams. But, of course, we aren't required to indulge him (perhaps if Prager conducted like Kleiber, it'd be a different story). I mean, I used to play baseball in high school, and I catch a Mets game at Citi Field whenever I can. But if I went to a triple-a game and asked to be put in at starting pitcher--so I can share my love of baseball and bring in new fans--they'd tell me to get lost, even if it were the case that I was bringing in new fans. (For me, then, Prager's a small-scale version of Gilbert Kaplin, whose "performances" I also understood as political hokum.)
Post Edited (2017-08-04 11:19)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: dorjepismo ★2017
Date: 2017-08-04 17:30
You know, there's a point--say, advocating allowing sex with small children--at which pretty much everyone here would agree that a person shouldn't be conducing orchestras. Move the slider a bit--say, advocating anti-Semitism or overt racist ideologies like "white nationalism," both of which have tried to use Trump's activities to normalize their views--and you'd still get broad agreement. What this is about isn't broad, objective principles, but where to draw the line. Some people seem to be saying that only one person or a few should get to draw the line, and the orchestra members shouldn't say or do anything about it. But this is the U.S.A., and that's not how things happen here, nor should it be. For an extreme version of head-down orchestra membership, take a look at the movie on the Berlin Phil website, "The Reichsorchester." As far as I'm concerned, the more involved musicians are in helping determine the character of their ensembles, the better. Where the line gets drawn is best left for the folks closer to the circumstances to work out.
Post Edited (2017-08-04 17:48)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Johan H Nilsson
Date: 2017-08-06 03:23
Brycon,
Name the Conservatives or Libertarians that have called for boycotts of political opponents' non-political activities, e.g. performing music.
Dorjepissmo,
While laws against pedophily and laws in general could be described as 'totalitarian' and qualify every country as 'totalitarian', the term would not be meaningful any more. Totalitarianism is when the leading political establishment uses its powers to silence opposing political views and unwanted facts.
Looking at your examples, the leftist orchestra members in question would never boycott an Arab conductor that were both anti-Semite and married to a 10 year old. These ever lasting double moral standards for different races make these "anti-racist" actions so laughable. :-D
Btw. cause and effect is a leftist oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2017-08-06 06:15
Johan H Nilsson wrote:
> Looking at your examples, the leftist orchestra members in
> question would never boycott an Arab conductor that were both
> anti-Semite and married to a 10 year old. These ever lasting
> double moral standards for different races make these
> "anti-racist" actions so laughable. :-D
>
Unless the Arab had migrated to the U.S. and become a local politician, he probably wouldn't be conducting (either by the orchestra board's invitation or at his request) an American community orchestra.
But, in any case, I think your guess is wrong. I don't think most "leftists" are sympathetic to anti-semitism or child marriage (or the polygamy of harems). I think you have them confused with some other group.
Karl
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Johan H Nilsson
Date: 2017-08-06 12:42
Karl, I know leftists from the inside and out. You are perfectly right that they oppose anti-semitism and child marriage. Precondition: When white men are involved. The comedy begins when they encounter non-white ethnical groups where this is a full-blown part of the culture. :-D
Of course the leftists will hate everyone who points this out from their bones. With no arguments they will resort to violence and different kinds of oppression, like attempts to limit of free speech and shutting out 'dissidents' from public job opportunities.
Brycon mentioned how the "stupid" Milo Yiannopoulos was invited to speak at a "prestigious college". Well, if he was so stupid, why did not the protesting leftists let someone from their lines debate against him and assassinate him intellectually, rather than pulling the fire alarm and starting riots? :-D
|
|
|
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
