In short: The Melbourne Symphony Orchestra admits it made an error when it pulled pianist Jayson Gillham from an upcoming performance over comments he made about the killing of journalists in Gaza.
The MSO said it made an “error” in cancelling his performance, but maintains their concert was not an appropriate place to express personal views.
What’s next? The orchestra’s August 15 concert, which was expected to go ahead without Mr Gillham, has now been cancelled due to security issues but the MSO wants to reschedule the performance.
Obviously, cancelling him was an error of judgement.
Upon reflection, or encouragement from the union, they’ve realised and corrected their error.
That said, regardless of how you feel about journalists in Palestine, the MSO’s event is not a platform from which to espouse political views.
Eh, they played the ukranian national anthem before concerts in 2022. I could see where you’re coming from if the soloist actually said something controversial but his statement was literally along the lines of “war crimes are bad” - cancelling his performance for that is a much more inflammatory political statement (hence the huge backlash) than what he said in the first place imo.
What the MSO chooses to play is their choice, what a pianist chooses to say is a personal opinion. You see the difference right?
Also…
This is a very obvious accusation of a war crime. It may be well documented, it may be obvious, but until a court is convened and confirms a crime has occurred it’s still just an accusation.
If it was this guys own recital which he was producing himself then he could say what he likes.
I think we agree here in the sense that MSO are within their rights to dismiss him. But I think that the public backlash is very predictable outcome, and the public are right to feel outraged at the MSO for this. I can understand they’re in a tough position but cancelling the soloist’s performance was really the nuclear option. The cancellation is a much bigger political statement than the soloists comments (which were ultimately about the composition anyway), and if that’s the statement the MSO wants to make they’re free to do so but they need to accept they’re being perceived as not only silencing their own artists, but also defending war crimes (whether that was their intention or not). Just terrible management of the situation.
The artists comments were an allegation of a war crime.
Obviously it could’ve been handled better but old mate should’ve known better.
“Allegation” is far too weak a word for the amount of evidence at hand here. He mentioned the barely-disputed facts of war crimes. Facts that are built in to the piece the MSO scheduled.
Was the MSO “within their rights” to cancel him if they wanted? Of course, yes, legally. And we are within our rights to tell them that it was an extremely regressive and shitty thing to do, and that cancelling him is ethically they did completely the wrong thing. And they’ve continued to do the wrong thing in this complete non-apology.
I’m not disputing what has happened in Palestine, but I maintain that it’s daft to make this type of incendiary comment from someone else’s platform.
When you’re acting as part of a group your views and opinions reflect on said group, and as such its a basic courtesy to discuss anything controversial with said group in advance.
This applies to anyone with any sort of job or affiliation what so ever.
It’s a basic expectation that if you’re performing a piece, especially at its world premier you’re going to talk a bit about the piece. That’s literally what he did. He didn’t bring up personal politics out of nowhere.
There is no justification for even the mildest of criticism against him, except for being a supporter of Israel’s genocide. They’re already removed the possibility of claiming not to be political thanks to their prior (and recent) actions.
“Agree with me or you support genocide”.
What absolute nonsense. He was playing a piece of music literally dedicated to journalists murdered by Israel. The piece was on the programme at that concert, it’s not like he surprised them with it in an encore. (I know the public isn’t usually made aware of what piece might be played for an encore. I dunno if the host orchestra normally would be. Not that that’s relevant here anyway.)
If you don’t want politics, don’t get involved in the arts. Expecting no comment to be made about Israel’s war crimes is like expecting a Shostakovich concert to never mention the Nazis & WWII or Stalin and his artistic crackdowns. Or to perform Beethoven’s Eroica and make no mention of Napoleon.
All art is political. Some more explicitly so than others. And they scheduled a piece that was extremely political, and then got outraged at the politics of the piece being mentioned. It’s absurd.
Apparently the MSO agrees that their performance is not a platform for political views.
The MSO is objectively wrong if they claim to believe that, not least because of what they literally chose to be on the programme of this very concert. (And their previous political statements vis à vis Ukraine, and the mere fact that they are a purveyor of the arts).
It’s their concert. Aren’t they the authority on whether it’s a platform for the personal views of the guy engaged to make pretty noises?
Yet, they Streisanded their views and politics.
Not really.
Yes they amplified what the guy said, but they also distanced themselves from his views.
Suppose the orchestra has wealthy pro-israel benefactors. The MSO committee might agree with what piano-face said, but as an organisation they may have felt obligated to uphold a non-partisan position.
The Streisand effect is when you try to delete content. In this case they just tried to disclaim it.
And as you said , amplified it. If you think silencing criticism of a genocide to appease donors is not showing your politics, then what is?
I didn’t mean they held the same views. Rather, the opposite. Or at least indifference, which from the perspective of the performed, amounts to the same.
Holding a non partisan pisition would be saying they dont share his views nor think it was an appropriate place for it, but not try to cancel him.
The guy engaged to make pretty noises made an allegation of a war crime.
It’s disingenuous to frame the MSOs response as “silencing criticism of genocide”. Everyone is free to criticise all they like, but if you use someone else’s platform to do so, there will be consequences.
And likewise of someone is offered a platform, and uses it in a way you don’t like, if you then censure them, there will be consequences.
Similar happened to Sydney theater compnay. They lost money but retained dignity. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/the-sydney-theatre-company-controversy-explained/wht4qwxn5
There’s nothing non-partisan about cancelling someone for stating facts.
It’s an alleged crime yet to be confirmed by a recognised court, therefore they remain “alleged” facts.