Trouble at t'Proms

[Ariosto]

Just remember that the members of the LPO as a self governing orchestra are meant to be the owners of the orchestra, so there is something very strange going on here. Did the orchestral players have a vote on this issue? Or perhaps the players that have been sacked/suspended are not full time members and therefore easily got rid of?

[Tony Halstead]

Has anybody thought of actually asking the players themselves about all this? e.g. why did they decide to sign themselves as LPO members rather than private individuals? Do we even know who they were /are?

[doversoul1]

The link may have been posted earlier but here it is.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/letters/letters-exam-results-2345813.html

Scroll down
Perspectives on the Middle East conflict
Proms exploited for arts propaganda campaign

[ed] There are two OAE members. I wonder if they had the permission from the orchestra or the policy is different there.

[MrGongGong]

What worries me about this is that people seem to think that its somehow OK for employers to "own" the people who they employ to the extent that they are trying to forbid them from expressing legitimate (i.e NOT illegal ) views. This seems to be harking back to treating these musicians as tied labour. An orchestra is a large group of people , they will all hold differing views and opinions , what on earth is the problem with that ? Why is this in any way different from if they were academics ? Do people really think that musicians shouldn't be able to say who they play for if they are writing to a newspaper ? A certain wife of a very high profile politician is a violinist in the LSO, this of course must mean that that orchestra is endorsing the policies of the Labour party then ?

The LPO really should grow up and stop trying to control people in this way

[teamsaint]

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

or how life is for most other self employed people, for that matter.
its certainly true that as aself employed person you pay 2 different types of NI , and get almost nothing by way of benefits.


anyway, heres an interesting thing .....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/14914280.stm

An employee who apparently isn't really free to express his views on a subject.

some people may not have much sympathy, but seems very badly wrong to me.

[MrGongGong]

Surely we ALL should have the freedom to believe what we want ? and to express it , as long as its not inciting hatred, violence or offence to others ?

Stand by for a purge of Stockhausen , he had some "eccentric" views and we can't been seen to be agreeing with them can we ????

[doversoul1]

The issue is not whether an employer can or should forbid their employees to express their views. It is whether an employee of an organisation can or should use the name of his/her employer when s/he is expressing her/his personal view when the subject is a controversial issue in their professional field. Academics usually state their field (e.g. Professor of Music) but not the name of the university they work for.

Originally posted by MrGG

An orchestra is a large group of people, they will all hold differing views and opinions, what on earth is the problem with that ?

Exactly. That’s why individual players cannot go about expressing their personal views under the name of the orchestra. I dislike the term but that is what ‘disclaimer’ is for. I have a friend who is a head of a school and her email has as the signature ‘what is expressed here is my personal views and not to be considered as the views held by school’ or something to the effect.

And what is wrong with being tied labour? As long as a musician or anybody for that matter is paid by an organisation under a certain contract, s/he is tied labour. That should have nothing to do with artistic value.

Originally posted by MrGG

A certain wife of a very high profile politician is a violinist in the LSO, this of course must mean that that orchestra is endorsing the policies of the Labour party then ?

If the LPO publicly says that that is the reason why they employed her, yes. Otherwise no.

[Ariosto]

IPO/Proms letter

Here is the letter.



Proms exploited for arts propaganda campaign


As musicians we are dismayed that the BBC has invited the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra to play at the Proms on 1 September. The IPO has a deep involvement with the Israeli state – not least its self-proclaimed "partnership" with the Israeli Defence Forces. This is the same state and army that impedes in every way it can the development of Palestinian culture, including the prevention of Palestinian musicians from travelling abroad to perform.

Our main concern is that Israel deliberately uses the arts as propaganda to promote a misleading image of Israel. Through this campaign, officially called "Brand Israel", denials of human rights and violations of international law are hidden behind a cultural smokescreen. The IPO is perhaps Israel 's prime asset in this campaign.

The Director of the Proms, Roger Wright, was asked to cancel the concert in accordance with the call from the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott (PACBI). He rejected this call, saying that the invitation is "purely musical".

Israel's policy towards the Palestinians fits the UN definition of apartheid. We call on the BBC to cancel this concert.

Derek Ball (composer)

Frances Bernstein (community choir leader)

Steve Bingham (violinist)

John Claydon (saxophonist)

Malcolm Crowthers (music photographer)

Raymond Deane (composer)

Tom Eisner (violinist LPO)

Nancy Elan (violinist LPO)

Deborah Fink (soprano)

Catherine Ford (violinist, Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment)

Reem Kelani (Palestinian singer, musician and broadcaster)

Les Levidow (violinist)

Susie Meszaros (violinist, Chilingirian Quartet)

Roy Mowatt (violinist, Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment)

Ian Pace (pianist)

Leon Rosselson (singer-songwriter)

Dominic Saunders (pianist)

Chris Somes-Charlton (artist manager)

Leni Solinger (violinist)

Sarah Streatfeild (violinist LPO)

Sue Sutherley (cellist, LPO)

Tom Suarez (violinist, New York)

Kareem Taylor (Oud Player/Guitarist and Composer)

Miriam Walton (pianist, organist and French horn player)

[Tony Halstead]

Surely we ALL should have the freedom to believe what we want ? and to express it , as long as its not inciting hatred, violence or offence to others ?

Yes indeed, I totally agree.
BUT
It has been publicly alleged that those four LPO musicians ( By the way, NOT permanent, salaried employees of the orchestra, but self-employed, non-contracted players) by invoking the name of the LPO, did indeed 'offend' their orchestral colleagues.

[Tony Halstead]

Ian Pace (pianist)

Did we not hear from Mr Pace quite often on the 'old' messageboards?

[Ariosto]

Yes indeed, I totally agree.
BUT
It has been publicly alleged that those four LPO musicians ( By the way, NOT permanent, salaried employees of the orchestra, but self-employed, non-contracted players) by invoking the name of the LPO, did indeed 'offend' their orchestral colleagues.

Do we have any evidence that they offended their orchestral colleagues, or is this just, as usual, heresay?

[Tony Halstead]

Here are some answers to my recent question ( message 332) :

http://www.r3ok.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=581

[Dave2002]

I'm amused by the notion of boycotting concerts. I boycott many - by not going to them. Many I don't even know about or care about. As such I did boycott the concert on 21st September, but not for any reasons of conviction for or against any issues mentioned. [I didn't know about it ...]

I think what was being proposed was more like picketing, or maybe distributing leaflets outside a concert hall for or against an issue.

On a more positive note, has anyone noticed that some LPO concerts are available to listen again from their own site? http://londonphilharmonic.wordpress.com/

Perhaps those who advocated a boycott won't listen in either!

[doversoul1]

Do we have any evidence that they offended their orchestral colleagues, or is this just, as usual, heresay?

Originally posted by Ariosto

that the members of the LPO as a self governing orchestra are meant to be the owners of the orchestra

Then, what happened is the evidence (in theory, as I have no idea how the orchestra management really works) isn’t it? I do agree with you in that I don’t agree with what the LPO did but these musicians should have been more aware of what they were doing when they added the name of the orchestra to their personal opinions.

[Flosshilde]

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.

Panjandrum is perfectly right - if they played for the LPO exclusively, & the LPO were in control of the hours they worked, then the Inland Revenue would deem them employees. I'm reasonably confident in saying this as my partner was in a similar position, working for an organisation as a self-employed 'consultant'. The organisation, however, set down the number of hours he would be payed for, the hours he could work between, and where he had to work during those hours -their offices. The Inland Revenue said that this made him a de facto employee.

If these musicians could, & do, work for other orchestras then why didn't they give those orchestras' names as well? One can only assume that they thought that the effect of their letter was strengthened by the name of the orchestra - in which case the orchestra has every right to decide that they were mis-using it.

But I'm not clear if the musicians have been sacked - in which case they must have been employees in the first place, or has the orchestra simply announced that, as freelance, they will no longer be used?