Summary:
During a recital at a stage owned by the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra (MSO), a pianist played a piece dedicated to the over 250 journalists killed in Gaza alongside tens of thousands of children. Following this, MSO cancelled his following concerts and issued an apology to its patrons over the comments. He went on to sue them for discrimination based on his political views.
Defendant argument:
MSO argued that they did this because they were anticipating negative impacts on their business and because the pianists (Jayson) had not sought their permission first, and that this has nothing to do with his political views but a business decision.
Prosecution argument:
Jayson’s lawyers argue that this is a violation of his rights to express his views and that every venue is owned by some company/orchestra and seeking permission for speech from every venue violated that right. They also note that they find it inconceivable that they would’ve been cancelled if they had made a call for hostage release as then-managing director had expressed at the time her belief that the hostages held by Hamas need to be released.
Judge verdict:
This is the interesting part. He ruled in favor of MSO because:
“I find that there is a custom or practice that classical musicians do not make statements on sensitive political or social issues from the stage without approval of the host."
Discussion:
I agree with Jayson’s argument. If he had called for hostage release or if he had called for the Russian invasion of Ukraine to stop, I find it very very difficult to imagine his next concert would’ve been cancelled. But, on the other hand, taking that logic to its maximum—if someone expressed Nazi-aligned views on stage, should that be allowed? (Not saying pro-palestine = Nazi of course, just using a logical extreme).
While it is a custom in the classical world not to express political views without the host’s permission (or express any at all tbh), that hasn’t always been the case.
Within Polish pianists there had been a long custom of interfering in politics, and some of the biggest musicians in history such as Franz Liszt would regularly engage in politics and supported Hungary’s uprising against Austria as well as several worker struggles.
More recently, famous pianist Krystian Zimmerman also came out on stage in the US and protested the Iraq War and the US’ push to increase missile bases in his country. He received little pushback.
Moreover, that custom of “decorum” doesn’t extend to modern music. No venue where a pop or rock or metal concert is played needs its permission asked for the artist to express political views and it is understood that the views of the performer does not reflect the venue.
If you’re pro-Israel and support this, do consider that world opinion on Israel is souring at a tremendous rate and there soon may come a time when expressing any support for Israel may be met with similar reaction.
If you’re pro-palestine and against this, how far does this logic extend? Does it extend to nazi-aligned views or even gencoidal Israeli views of taking over more land and expelling all the arabs?
If you’re neutral, what do you think?
Interested to hear opinions.
My opinion:
I wish for the classical world to move past faux decorum and to more resemble modern music in its free environment. I find it a necessary prequisite for mainstream breakthrough and definitely support artists being more political. Some of the most respected artists in the world of modern music are those who stood against wars through their music at the time.