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…
You may now 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 Jr. on the nature of nonviolent protests
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
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 k ow 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.
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.
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
People pay to see and enjoy listening to a symphony, not listen to political opinion.
I guess you don't attend classic concerts often? It is very standard for conductors or soloists to introduce modern pieces and discuss their sociopolitical relevance. I literally just went to one the other week where the director of The King's College Cambridge Choir introduced a piece about the massacre, dispossession and forced assimilation of Indigenous Australians.
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.
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.
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.
mozz@mbin.grits.dev to 
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…
You may now 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.
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
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 k ow 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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh, okay then.
HEY EVERYBODY! JIMSAMTANKO SAYS IT'S THE END OF STORY! I guess we all have to stop talking about it now.
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
I guess you don't attend classic concerts often? It is very standard for conductors or soloists to introduce modern pieces and discuss their sociopolitical relevance. I literally just went to one the other week where the director of The King's College Cambridge Choir introduced a piece about the massacre, dispossession and forced assimilation of Indigenous Australians.
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.
WDYT about this bit of the article?
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.
Freudian typo: as long as people have "bread and circuses" it's surprising what you can get away with.
lol! Good catch.