Trouble at t'Proms

[Tony Halstead]

A quote from aeolium:
"(I) won't be listening to any concerts of theirs on R3."

Definitely your loss, aeolium.

[aeolium]

I'll cope somehow, waldhorn

[Ariosto]

A quote from aeolium:
"(I) won't be listening to any concerts of theirs on R3."

Definitely your loss, aeolium.

IF I still had an active orchestral playing career I would refuse to work for the LPO (which could mean of course the Liberate Palestine Orchestra, but unfortunately it doesn't).

I have of course emailed the big (probably overpaid) boss there and said I will no longer attend LPO concerts or buy their recordings, and I will switch off on radio and TV. I will of course also encourage other people to do the same.

[LHC]

It seems to be OK if you work in academia as it is regarded as thinking for yourself whilst stating where you work (common sense to most people) but not in the LPO.

Academics have a legal safeguard called 'academic freedom', which is usually defined as "freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges".

I doubt very much that orchestral musicians (or indeed any other sort of employee) have the same protection in law.

[MrGongGong]

I'm assuming that the LPO players are technically freelance even though they might earn all their money from playing in the LPO
so what that means (and as a freelance musician myself i'm only too aware of this plight !) is that they will get NO money , NO retainer, NO sick pay, NO benefits of any sort as they will probably be deemed to have "made themselves redundant"
the management of the LPO should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves

[Panjandrum]

I'm assuming that the LPO players are technically freelance even though they might earn all their money from playing in the LPO
so what that means (and as a freelance musician myself i'm only too aware of this plight !) is that they will get NO money , NO retainer, NO sick pay, NO benefits of any sort as they will probably be deemed to have "made themselves redundant" the management of the LPO should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves

I'm glad you acknowledge that the players concerned are freelancers. It would, would it not, be disingenuous to say that they were entitled to use the LPO's name to bolster their position given the fact that they are not employees? It would also be disingenuous not to recognise that no such sanctions would have been levied had they not tried to make capital of their affiliation. However, if as you say, they get all their income from playing with the LPO they may expect to be subject to Schedule e income tax as a deemed employee. You really can't expect to have your cake and eat it you know.

[Lateralthinking1]

It would make more sense to ask these musicians to explain their position fully. I remain genuinely perplexed that the whole emphasis is on the Israel rather than the issue. Namely, human rights abuses.

What I would like to know is where these people - in fact any who are sympathetic to them on this forum - feel that the cut-off point might be on the issue of human rights abuses:

At what point do we say country A's human rights abuses can be tolerated at a push but country B's cannot?

What number in the Top 100 human rights abusers charts represents the line at which protest commences to the point of boycott?

And where would the United Kingdom's human rights abuses sit on that scale?

I guess what concerns me here is the potential for specific targeting to masquerade as thought out, genuine, concern.

And, of course, to concertina it as many do is by implication almost to pardon all the others, not deliberately, but in denial.

[MrGongGong]

I'm glad you acknowledge that the players concerned are freelancers. It would, would it not, be disingenuous to say that they were entitled to use the LPO's name to bolster their position given the fact that they are not employees? It would also be disingenuous not to recognise that no such sanctions would have been levied had they not tried to make capital of their affiliation. However, if as you say, they get all their income from playing with the LPO they may expect to be subject to Schedule e income tax as a deemed employee. You really can't expect to have your cake and eat it you know.

This , sadly shows the usual complete ignorance of what life is like for self -employed musicians
of course we all pay tax, NI etc BUT for all our payments we are entitled to NOTHING

if you read the letter you would see that they were not "using" the LPO name to "bolster" any position but simply stating who they play for , this hardly implies that EVERYONE in the organisation agrees ............... the alternative is for no one who writes to a newspaper to be allowed to say whom they work for

musicians are not "tied labourers" who doff their caps to the squire

[Ariosto]

I would just like to clear up some points for Panjandrum who does not fully understand how professional orchestras that are supposedly self governing, work.

The players do not have to work exclusively for that orchestra, although some may do. (If they take time off for any reason they may have to pay for the deputies).

They pay income tax as self employed people because they get nothing other than their fees from the orchestra, and they have to pay their own expenses, including the purchase of expensive instruments, and their upkeep, repairs and renewals. Many of these instruments may well be priced at anything from £20,000 to £400,000 and even much more. Instruments that were puchased say 20-30 years ago for a more reasonable sum will howver need to be insured for their full value, and this can be a lot of money per year. Repair and up keep alone on say a fiddle could well be over £1,000 per year, and with major repairs could exceed £5,000

A set of strings for a cello is about £400 and for a bass a lot more. Violinists in orchestras will spend at least £250 a year on strings and probably much more, and 4 bow rehairs a year can total £200. (Four rehairs a year is skimping it a bit). And bows are not cheap - £1,500 to over £100,000 - so most orchestral players will have three bows at say £2,500 each - and they are expensive to insure as well.

Then there are lots of other expenses - travel - hotels - meals - clothes (a tails suit is about £500+ and a penguin siut about £300 minimum plus a good grey suit is required as well). None of this is provided by the orchestra.

I'm sure I've missed lots out, all those things that add up, like phone bills, taxis - well you name it.

So at the end of the day the poor orchestral musician has **** all - and what he has left is taxed after personal allowances just like everyone else.

None of this makes much sense because its the worst paid profession there is - so I think most must do it for the love of the music.

It's good to get the facts right before making judgements.

[MrGongGong]

Well put Ariosto
its surprising how few people with "ordinary"jobs have even the slightest idea of what self employment actually entails for musicians

[Rolmill]

Well put Ariosto
its surprising how few people with "ordinary"jobs have even the slightest idea of what self employment actually entails for musicians

The point about the financial difficulties faced by freelance musicians is fair, certainly in this country, but it's hard to suppress a small cringe at the patronising reference to "people with 'ordinary' jobs" - performing arts professionals with such superior airs are entertainingly (and usually justifiably) skewered by Private Eye's occasional "Luvvies" feature.

As it happens, the latest PE also features a 'Lunchtime O'Boulez' piece on the LPO's treatment of the four players, taking the view that the reaction was heavy-handed and possibly influenced by pro-Israeli financial supporters of the orchestra. Could well be right, and I agree that the punishment is harsh. However, I do think the four were naive to add the orchestra's name to their signatures under a letter which was clearly courting controversy, when it was unnecessary to do so - why not just say "professional violinist"? The letter concerned politics, not music, so which orchestra they play with was completely irrelevant.

[Flosshilde]

Quoting MrGongGong:
"surely it can't be legal to 'suspend' someone for writing to the newspaper???"

perhaps one of our lawyer MBs could opine on this question...?

I'm not a lawyer, but many employment contracts have a clause about 'bringing the organisation into disrepute'. People have been sacked for mentioning their employer in a less than favourable light in blogs. While I am apalled at the LPO's action, I do think that giving your employer in a signature to a letter does imply that you are speaking on their behalf, or that your views are shared by them; if the players had wanted to emphasise their expertise or their special qualification they could have said, in the letter, something along the lines of 'as players in a leading orchestra'.

[MrGongGong]

I'm not a lawyer, but many employment contracts have a clause about 'bringing the organisation into disrepute'. People have been sacked for mentioning their employer in a less than favourable light in blogs. While I am apalled at the LPO's action, I do think that giving your employer in a signature to a letter does imply that you are speaking on their behalf, or that your views are shared by them; if the players had wanted to emphasise their expertise or their special qualification they could have said, in the letter, something along the lines of 'as players in a leading orchestra'.

so , for example , if you were a postman/woman/operative and you wrote to the newspaper would it be assumed that you were speaking on behalf of the post office ?

Methinks not
people are generally more intelligent than that
and given that they are freelance (I'll be careful to avoid being "patronising" to "ordinary" folk ???? what on earth are "" for anyway ?) does that mean that ANY comments are seen to be representative of that organisation ? obviously not i would say

[doversoul1]

Freelancers in any field have much the same expense and worries. They need to look after themselves by being careful what they do and say, unless they are so brilliant that people are queuing up to employ them.

I agree with Flosshilde. Those musicians were far too naïve. If they are freelance, I doubt if they have the right to use the name of the organisation they are happen to be working for without the permission. Besides, if they were expressing their own opinions (as many have already said), why did they need to mention any organisation? I don’t agree with what the LPO did but that’s because I think their reaction was way over the top.

‘postman’ is an equivalent to ‘violin player’.

[french frank]

so , for example , if you were a postman/woman/operative and you wrote to the newspaper would it be assumed that you were speaking on behalf of the post office ?

Do you think that if a postman had signed the letter he would have added 'postman, Royal Mail' after his name? If not, why not?