Classical Music Forum banner

Opera singer barred due to alleged vilification of gays

23K views 234 replies 30 participants last post by  Musicforawhile 
#1 · (Edited)
The story here:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-23/opera-singer-tamar-iveri-released-from-otello/5543944

I was a bit hesitant to create this thread, but I did. I don't want to needlessly create controversy here, but I think it can provide for an interesting contrast of opinions on this news story. Of course, if you want to challenge another forum members' opinion, please do it within the rules of TC. I don't want this thread to descent to mayhem and be locked!

So, once you've read the story, you might want to give your thoughts on it.

Some specific questions here (for guidance only) :

1. Do you think that the decision to prevent this singer from performing was a good one?

2. Why or why not?

3. Under what circumstances should a musicians' comments on sensitive issues like this affect their ability to perform?

4. Should posts on facebook or on other social media be taken to be the same as comments made in an 'on the record' type or official interview, for example in a published article?

5. Does vilification of minorities (be it LGBT, ethnic, religous groups) by musicians worry you so much that you would boycott their performance?
 
See less See more
#3 · (Edited)
Oh i'm shocked.
And having trouble with formulating now i'm confused. I get your point though!
Having thought about it i say: Yes. I'ts a good decision of opera Australia.
Because there would have been too much controversy. Among members and attenders.
Surely you can have a opinion, but if a company decides to pull the plug, then thats their own right!
When is something official? Where there is smoke, there's fire so something has to be done.

On your last question i say yes cause i wouldnt enjoy the performance anymore.
 
#4 ·
Couple of simple points.

Social media is a minefield. Unless the artiste has a page managed by a PR company, you are always likely to get their actual opinions rather than "what the artiste meant to say was ...". So it is more representative of their opinions. The other problem is that people can mount a campaign and seem to have more popular support than they actually do. This is particularly the case in an unmoderated environment where some people will be put off by (unregulated) trolling.

Second thing, and we have seen this with various Wagner threads, to what extent does the artist's personal views diminish the greatness of his work? Does the use of Parsifal, for example, as a myth of "racial purity" diminish its artistic merits? The related question is to what extent should we attempt to control artists. Are things like denazification and McCarthyism simply the obverse of the Zhdanov Doctrine and equally to be deplored?

I don't have answers, just some disquiet.
 
#5 ·
I think it is okay to have a conscientious objection to mainstream opinion: free speech is important. But the sheer nastiness of what she said takes my breath away. In this case, some action had to be taken. Other instances might be less clear.

Yes - I would boycott an artiste to whose opinions or actions I had a strong moral objection. It would have to be an issue that was very important to me. For example, I don't avoid people whose political point of view differs from mine.
 
#6 · (Edited)
It disturbs me a little how celebrities have to behave themselves more than everyone else, and how the smallest mistakes they make (not that abusing minorities is a small mistake) immediately turn into gossip.

In fairness, though, just as a performer should have the freedom to say whatever they like, other people should have the freedom to boycott their performances. No banning required.

Personally, I'd still attend if I could, even if I were gay, because I'm going for the performance, not the performers.
 
#7 · (Edited)
Kind of shocked. I can understand that people can have strong views on all kinds of societal matters (I do!), but to speak in such a way shows such bad manners and lack of breeding. However, personally, I don't think I'd boycott in an equivalent situation. Whether I'd consciously book to see somebody who's behaviour I didn't like, well that's another thing.
 
#8 ·
Just to be clear, this is not a small matter. This woman compared homosexuals, and actually the West in general, to faecal matter. Basically she was saying we are all a heap of ****. If that's what you think of the West, dear, then don't come and perform here, and don't pick up your presumably large fee (probably a lot more than you get in Georgia). Good riddance to bad rubbish. La Monnaie has also cancelled her contract. I hope her international career has now been killed stone dead.
 
#9 ·
If Opera Australia receives any taxpayer money for its operations, which I imagine it does-- then they cannot discriminate against the very same people who are forced to pay for its operation; even by people who may endorse the admittedly vile comments of Miss Iveri.

On the other hand, if Opera Australia were a one-percent privately-funded enterprise, then they can hire or fire for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all.

http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Gro...278&sr=1-1&keywords=forbidden+grounds+epstein

Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaay. . . now where did I put that extra-strength asbestos evening gown and tiara?
 
#10 ·
My guess is that Opera Australia cancelled her contract for fear of an incident during the performance. Basically they were protecting themselves, and who can blame them? Given the amount of gay people who work behind the scenes as well, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they all refused to work with her. I don't think they had a choice really.

As for Iveri, maybe she learned an important lesson, "Don't bite the hand that feeds."
 
#13 · (Edited)
My guess is that Opera Australia cancelled her contract for fear of an incident during the performance. Basically they were protecting themselves, and who can blame them? Given the amount of gay people who work behind the scenes as well, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they all refused to work with her. I don't think they had a choice really.

As for Iveri, maybe she learned an important lesson, "Don't bite the hand that feeds."
I agree with your conclusion ("Don't bite the hand that feeds.") if not your analysis. Gaucherie and gratuitous hatred around sophisticated and decent people isn't going to go unpunished; and shouldn't be. It is my devoutest wish that decent people in the operatic word have nothing to to with Miss Iveri. "You made your bed, Honey. Now sleep in it."

But I'm looking into the deep-focus of the legal and philosophic foundations of the issue.

When everyone is forced to pay for a 'public service,' and then that service is denied to some of the people who are paying for it-- is this fair, just, or equable? If so, by what standard? The Evangelical Religious Right or the PC Religious Left?

In the American South in the fifties, blacks had to sit at the back of the bus in some states; yet at the same time, they were forced to pay the taxes that supported a service that denied them service. Is that fair?

Though I would never compare the hideous likes of Miss Iveri to the entirely-justified struggles of African-Americans, the principle of the matter is identical.
 
#11 ·
It's kind of sad the West is associated with gay pride parades in the minds of outsiders. But that is a popular stereotype in the former Soviet Union, of which Georgia is a part. And that stereotype is actively endorsed from Moscow... and there we get to politics the discussion of which on TC is not encouraged :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrankE
#14 ·
I'm not sure I agree with you. It seems to me that this is a clash of cultures, not much more. The problem arises when these ultra-conservative Eastern European cultures, want to join and benefit from what the West can give them. They are determined not to be sullied by the West, but then they also want to become part of it, so what do they do?

At the Eurovision Song Contest this year, Russia and one or two other Eastern European countries tried to have the Austrian entry (a bearded drag queen) banned from the competition for offending moral decency. The rest of Europe responded in the best way possible and handed her first prize. Russia was incensed, vowing never to enter again and to create their own competition. Whether that happens or not remains to be seen. The response of the competition organisers is to shrug and say, "Well you wanted to join, if you don't like it don't bother. Your choice."

I suspect that America and Europe see things differently but I rather resent the epithet of a PC (I assume you meant) non-religious left. Secularism is actually good for religion. It allows you ro practice whatever religion you wish, as long as it doesn't affect the rights of any other individual. What we demanded, which has now largely been achieved in the UK, is that everyone, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexuality should be treated equally under the law. I don't see that as being PC, just reasonable, and it is interesting that it is actually a Conservative government that brought in equal marriage rights.
 
#19 ·
Plenty. The statement that her husband had posted the stuff was disingenuous to say the least. There had been other instances on her facebook page too. Opera Australia said in their statement that they had thoroughly looked into the matter, and were satisfied that their decision to terminate her contract was the right one.
 
#22 ·
There is something about the vilification of celebrities who say repulsive things which I do not feel too comfortable about. Perhaps it is the loss of a career in exchange for a few appallingly ill chosen words with no direct consequences for anyone, which seems to be disproportionate, or it is the way this particular offence is targeted, whereas others are let go more. Or perhaps it is the tokenism, by scapegoating one prominent individual, the authorities can then say they have done something, whilst not dealing with other aspects of the problem. It may even be that by not allowing people to air these foul notions, we will not understand what they are thinking, and how to deal with them.

It is not that I care what happens to her, it is just that it doesn't seem to be entirely just and consistent.
 
#30 ·
GregMitchell: I suspect that America and Europe see things differently but I rather resent the epithet of a PC (I assume you meant) non-religious left.
I was using an extended metaphor-- and not an unwarranted or strained one at that-- to describe 'ideological fundamentalism'; whether of the religious or secular variety.

There are certain Evangelicals who want to legislate their morality onto other people; similarly, there are politically-correct zealots who want to legistlate what they consider the permissible parameters of free speech and association.

Is my vision to take precedence over my life? Or is it to be determined by the vision of the self-annointed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archduke and Orfeo
#33 · (Edited)
Woodduck;680147 said:
This makes things rather clearer, doesn't it? The "my husband did it" story looks pretty unlikely - unless they're in this campaign together!
"My dog ate my homework."

Possible but not probable.

-- She does deserve a forum to present her case though, in the interests of fair play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: samurai
#55 · (Edited)
OperaJelle: Enough male hetero sexual pride along the streets of Europe! Between every city youll find a brothel with their red lights and barely naked advertisement. Children are not crazy you know...
When I was just out of high school in the early nineties, I was at my friend's house and his Evangelical Christian mother showed me a video tape called "The Gay Agenda." It was a piece of agit-prop that featured only the most lurid and exceptional aspects of the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade. My friend's mom asked me what I thought. I told her I thought it was a fabulous piece of propaganda and hatred worthy of Der Sturmer itself. . . and the conversation deteriorated from there; but luckily, my friend grabbed me by the arm and we went surfing. . . in drag. Ha. Ha. Ha. No, just kidding, but we did go surfing.
 
This post has been deleted
#67 · (Edited)
Citizen Wood:

It's okay, the taxes are just cancelled money to prevent inflation. They don't pay for the opera and don't confer any rights for the taxpayers.
Contrary to Keynesian mythology, taxes don't prevent inflation; they merely distort the structure of production.

http://mises.org/document/3032/Pure-Theory-of-Capital-The

http://www.amazon.com/Failure-New-E...53&sr=1-2-fkmr0&keywords=henry+hazlitt+keynes

I'm not sure that the problem is unique to the public sector. After all, the private sector managers need to work out which decisions will maximise their profits, whilst the public sector aim to maximise social welfare. Neither approaches are easy, and non optimal decisions are not infrequent.
The so-called 'public sector'-- really the 'government sector'-- has no gauge of realistically calculating 'social welfare,' aside from profit and loss; which of course can only be provided by the market.

http://www.amazon.com/Profit-Loss-L...3643378&sr=1-1&keywords=profit+and+loss+mises

http://www.amazon.com/Economy-State...3643419&sr=1-2&keywords=profit+and+loss+mises
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wood
#77 ·
Citizen Wood:

Contrary to Keynesian mythology, taxes don't prevent inflation; they merely distort the structure of production.

http://mises.org/document/3032/Pure-Theory-of-Capital-The

http://www.amazon.com/Failure-New-E...53&sr=1-2-fkmr0&keywords=henry+hazlitt+keynes

The so-called 'public sector'-- really the 'government sector'-- has no gauge of realistically calculating 'social welfare,' aside from profit and loss; which of course can only be provided by the market.

http://www.amazon.com/Profit-Loss-L...3643378&sr=1-1&keywords=profit+and+loss+mises

http://www.amazon.com/Economy-State...3643419&sr=1-2&keywords=profit+and+loss+mises
Comrade Blair, I could discuss this with you until the cows come home.

I didn't know Hayek was still on the go, its been 30 years since I considered him, quite a blast from the past.

I'm not a Keynesian, especially not the woolly Hicksian type, so I'm not too sure how engaged I can be with the so-called Keynesian fallacies.

Re the bolded bit, I beg to differ. One gauge is full employment for example.

Taxes prevent inflation by taking money out of the economy. If the government kept pumping money in, but didn't tax, there would be more and more money competing for the same amount of goods and services (in a fully employed economy) hence inflation would be the result.
 
#80 ·
How can you really find out in each particular case whether the employee was discriminated against on the basis of his sexuality, race etc or on the basis of his performance? It's not like the employer would confess straight up: "Yeah, I don't like gays, so I fired this guy". Does not this open up possibilities for all kinds of vindictiveness and settling personal scores?

A while ago we had a thread about the Wiener Philarmoniker and it's alleged discrimination of an Asian female musician (unfortunately I can't find it now). Now, I think the VPO is much too important to boycott it in any situation, but what about all the lesser businesses/institutions?
 
#81 · (Edited)
How can you really find out in each particular case whether the employee was discriminated against on the basis of his sexuality, race etc or on the basis of his performance? It's not like the employer would confess straight up: "Yeah, I don't like gays, so I fired this guy". Does not this open up possibilities for all kinds of vindictiveness and settling personal scores?

A while ago we had a thread about the Wiener Philarmoniker and it's alleged discrimination of an Asian female musician (unfortunately I can't find it now). Now, I think the VPO is much too important to boycott it in any situation, but what about all the lesser businesses/institutions?
There are always unintended consequences, and yes it can be hard to prove employment discrimination. But would you prefer employees of a given minority group have no legal recourse whatsoever?
 
#85 ·
Right Honorable Wood: I beg to differ. One gauge is full employment for example.
The slave-societies of Nazi Germany and of ancient Egypt had full employment-- hardly a gauge of utility or of high living standards.

Right Honorable Wood: Taxes prevent inflation by taking money out of the economy. If the government kept pumping money in, but didn't tax, there would be more and more money competing for the same amount of goods and services (in a fully employed economy) hence inflation would be the result.
If the government took the taxes and buried them in a hole in the ground--yes. But that's not the Keynesian case: What happens is that the money gets spent on this ad hoc government program or that ad hoc special interest program--- which artificially inflates the prices of those sectors and artificially depresses the prices of capital and consumer goods forgone by the levying of the taxes.
 
#98 · (Edited)
The slave-societies of Nazi Germany and of ancient Egypt had full employment-- hardly a gauge of utility or of high living standards.
Fair enough. Let's say that the achievement of full employment is a gauge in western democracies in peacetime. Long term unemployment, as well as being wasteful of productive capacity, also has appalling consequences for those who suffer from it, including failing health and lower long term economic prospects.

If the government took the taxes and buried them in a hole in the ground--yes. But that's not the Keynesian case: What happens is that the money gets spent on this ad hoc government program or that ad hoc special interest program--- which artificially inflates the prices of those sectors and artificially depresses the prices of capital and consumer goods forgone by the levying of the taxes.
The bold bit is exactly what happens. Taxation is cancelled money, withdrawn from the economy.

Government expenditure is new, created money. For example, if the government pays a builder for constructing a new school, it creates the money via a simple computer entry to credit the money into the builder's bank account. That becomes new money in the economy available for the builder to spend.

The inflation in this case in the construction sector happens as full employment is approached. However, if there are unemployed resources in the sector, inflation will not occur because there is no scarcity to push up the prices.

So the sensible time to invest in state hospitals, schools and the like is during a recession. Unfortunately, this is the opposite of what the UK has done, by improving hospitals in the 90s boom, and having austerity since the recession began.
 
#106 ·
Guys! Guys! Guys!

I'm getting burried alive trying to answer PM's and Forum posts. I absolutely drag-queen-of-the-universe love it.

But I have to take a break.

Economics, fractional-reserve banking, civil rights law, American history-- and I thought this was a Forum where I could monologue on center stage to my heart's content about Tchaikovsky and Maria Callas.

Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top