Trouble at t'Proms

[Flosshilde]

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.

And others who gave their involvement in other groups. But there were plenty who thought that simply putting 'violinist' or 'pianist' was enough.

[Tony Halstead]

If indeed there was a majority of LPO members ( 'owners' of a self-governing orchestra whose management therefore is answerable to the democratic wishes of its members) who disagreed with / disapproved of the management's actions, it would be perfectly within their gift to call an orchestral meeting to vote on a proposal that the suspended players be re-instated.

[Dave2002]

Tricky stuff this. I was saddened by the problems with the IPO, though I'm by no means in favour of much of what the Israeli government is trying (or not) to do. In this case I suspect the "grown up" thing for the LPO to do, is to have a quiet word with the individuals, and remove their suspension, but it's just possible that the people concerned don't want that.

For what it's worth, I'm coming round to the view that the recent attempt by the Palestinians to join the UN makes sense, as it seems clear that Israel, and behind the scenes the USA and the UK governments, have been trying to avoid this. A negotiated solution to the differences between the different groups is very much to be desired, but Israel has - IMO - been very intransigent about negotiating seriously, and their continuing attempts (mostly succcessful as far as I can see) to occupy more land by settlement, seem unreasonable, given the state of negotiations. I have not heard of any moving of settlers from occupied lands in the last year or two, though previous Israeli governments have enforced that. The current one seems to be encouraging settlement. There is bad behaviour on both sides. The view expressed by third party governments such as the US and UK that the UN move will be counterproductive smacks to me of a biased representation of the situation, perhaps in line with Israel's own stonewalling on major issues.

I'm willing to be considered wrong on this. Both sides need to negotiate, with probably compromises, and should avoid violence if at all possible. That's been the state for a very long while, but there has been little progress.

[Ariosto]

Free lance working

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.

You seem to misunderstand the situation with musicians. Players could be deemed to be employees if the organisation employing them paid all of their expenses and provided all their needs - then the fees they recieved could be taxed after personal allowances like everyone else.

A musician earning say £24,000 a year in fees or payments may have to fork out as much as £9,000 on all the things I mentioned before in a previous post. If they do not get tax relief on this amount (ie. approx. 20% of £9,000 = £1,800) then they are being unfairly penalised. The company (LPO) would then have to provide all the players expenses - say £9,000 average - per year - and with say 80 players that would be approx. £720,000

Flossie, you have no idea, and to equate orchestral playing with your partner's job is silly.

For a start, many players in the LPO will not be required, sometimes for weeks on end, like in an opera situation, where only the first two or three desks of the strings are needed, and less woodwind and brass too. They don't get lay off pay, so they do other things, like freelancing with other bands, a lot of teaching catchup, or just selling their bodies on street corners, which is the same sort of prostitution as playing for a living.

This means that their sources of income are varied, and not by any means all of it comes from the LPO. In the same way their expenses are often increased as they have to take less well paid work and yet their costs are just as high.

It would be good if people who really know about these situations made comments rather than any old Tom, Dick and Harry who feel like chiming in when they don't know the real facts behind how the music profession operates.

[doversoul1]

Ariosto
As I said before, most freelancers are in the same situation regardless of their professions. Musicians are no difference. The rate of income and expense of a translator/interpreter is much the same (yes, the job need a few more things than a typewriter these days). There is absolutely no guarantee for the next job and there are no benefits of any kind to go with the job. There could be weeks before next job worth talking about, both in content and money, comes along. In the meantime, s/he translates odd texts for £25 (a café menu) here and £100 there (how to use a new dental drill) just keep his/her name on the agent’s list.

All this has nothing to do with whether an individual should use an organisation’s name when expressing personal opinions.

[teamsaint]

You seem to misunderstand the situation with musicians. Players could be deemed to be employees if the organisation employing them paid all of their expenses and provided all their needs - then the fees they recieved could be taxed after personal allowances like everyone else.

A musician earning say £24,000 a year in fees or payments may have to fork out as much as £9,000 on all the things I mentioned before in a previous post. If they do not get tax relief on this amount (ie. approx. 20% of £9,000 = £1,800) then they are being unfairly penalised. The company (LPO) would then have to provide all the players expenses - say £9,000 average - per year - and with say 80 players that would be approx. £720,000

Flossie, you have no idea, and to equate orchestral playing with your partner's job is silly.

For a start, many players in the LPO will not be required, sometimes for weeks on end, like in an opera situation, where only the first two or three desks of the strings are needed, and less woodwind and brass too. They don't get lay off pay, so they do other things, like freelancing with other bands, a lot of teaching catchup, or just selling their bodies on street corners, which is the same sort of prostitution as playing for a living.

This means that their sources of income are varied, and not by any means all of it comes from the LPO. In the same way their expenses are often increased as they have to take less well paid work and yet their costs are just as high.

It would be good if people who really know about these situations made comments rather than any old Tom, Dick and Harry who feel like chiming in when they don't know the real facts behind how the music profession operates.

Whether the inland revenue deem you an employee or as a self employed depends on the nature of the arrangement. There are general guidelines , and i am pretty certain there are specific guidelines for occupations.
the revenue can make a decision on your specific arrangements, since organisations frquently try to avoid costs and responsibilities by calling their staff freelancers...though of course this can be to the mutual benefit of both parties.

other than having some specific Inland revenue guidelines in place (i imagine), the music business is no different to any other in terms of tax treatment.And in general, the revenue make you prove that you are self employed.

F

[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?

Now that Ariosto has told us who all the letter's signatories are, I have just had a chance to speak with a musician who has worked with one of the LPO players recently.
They are aware of this thread but can't make any further comment as they have had to swear a 'vow of silence' even though they are still suspended.

[Flosshilde]

You seem to misunderstand the situation ...

Ariosto, if the players' position in the LPO is as ocassional or impermanent as you suggest I think that their use of the LPO's name to add extra weight to their argument was a little unwise.

(btw, I'm always happy to learn, but I do expect my teachers to show me a little respect.)

[MrGongGong]

picking up on this

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.

So are you really suggesting that because someone is paying me to do something they have the right to prevent me from expressing my opinion ?
If you actually READ the letter you can see that they weren't advocating violence or even a demonstration at the concert merely asking the BBC to reconsider the invitation to the IPO. For folk to trot out the "music has nothing to do with politics" nonsense shows a profound ignorance of music and cultural history as does some of the more rabid nonsense about people wanting to "ban Jewish musicians" that I have read in some of the newspaper articles about this.

[doversoul1]

As I have repeatedly said, and so have Flosshilde and others, it is a question of whether an individual should use an organisation’s name when s/he is expressing her/his own opinion. Whether you are in full employment or not makes no difference. Express your opinions as yourself and no orchestras or for that matter, no organisation will bother.

You said in one of your posts that people were intelligent enough not to confuse an individual’s opinion with that of an organisation only because they saw the name of the organisation added to the name of the individual. I don’t think it is a matter of intelligence. It is simply a custom: you do not use an organisation’s name in public without permission. Therefore, if the name is there, what is expressed is assumed to have something to do with the organisation. You may not like it or agree with it but that’s another matter.

[John Skelton]

Therefore, if the name is there, what is expressed is assumed to have something to do with the organisation. You may not like it or agree with it but that’s another matter.

People write letters to newspapers on any number of controversial subjects, giving details of their professional standing. I don't believe it's natural to view that as a claim to speak for an organisation, but rather as a way of situating the author or signatories to a letter professionally in relation to the subject under discussion.

Here's correspondence opposing an academic boycott of Israel. http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...ereducation.uk

No one would assume that each signatory to that letter was speaking on behalf of her or his institution. The claim has been made that academics have some special dispensation to comment differently, but I think that's a thin & opportunistic argument. The fear of a boycott seems to have been uppermost in Timothy Walker, the LPO Chief Executive's mind:

“This all became an issue when we started to receive emails and letters from supporters, a lot of whom are Jewish and felt that the players were taking an anti-Jewish position. Some said they weren’t going to come to the concerts or give us any money.” (Two signatories to the Independent letter are Jewish. What should be at issue here is that "a lot" of the LPO's financial supporters are angry at criticism of Israel. Their religious beliefs should - but are not allowed to be as presented - a side issue).

Imagine the outcry if four LPO musicians had been suspended for writing a letter signed as 'X - LPO' praising the BBC's invitation to the IPO & calling Israel a beacon of Western democracy.

(I think it quite possible, given the increasing reliance of universities on private funding, that this sort of situation will arise with academics in the future. Making the special dispensation line even thinner).

Retrospectively the LPO musicians would have been better off signing as 'London orchestral violinist', etc. But how they did sign has plenty of precedent. Whatever people think about the letter signed by the four musicians this is a dangerous & - literally, I believe - menacing development (see Brian Klug's letter here http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011...nt?INTCMP=SRCH). & whatever people think of boycotts (not interruptions of performances) boycotting the LPO's concerts, CDs & DVDs would clearly be a response in kind to Timothy Walker's response to representations from some of the orchestras donor / "supporters". It's what I'll be doing untli such time as the suspension is lifted & the LPO admits it acted unjustly. As, to my knowledge, will other music lovers.

[MrGongGong]

As I have repeatedly said, and so have Flosshilde and others, it is a question of whether an individual should use an organisation’s name when s/he is expressing her/his own opinion. Whether you are in full employment or not makes no difference. Express your opinions as yourself and no orchestras or for that matter, no organisation will bother.

You said in one of your posts that people were intelligent enough not to confuse an individual’s opinion with that of an organisation only because they saw the name of the organisation added to the name of the individual. I don’t think it is a matter of intelligence. It is simply a custom: you do not use an organisation’s name in public without permission. Therefore, if the name is there, what is expressed is assumed to have something to do with the organisation. You may not like it or agree with it but that’s another matter.

Surely its a matter of giving your opinions credibility ?

If I wrote to the paper and said I was simply a "musician" that could mean that I sat in my room playing my guitar every evening
if i was commenting on something connected to orchestral music and stated that I was working for the LSO, OROH, BBCSO and Philharmonia then it has greater weight. These musicians weren't lying about who they play for in the same way that academics are free to express opinions which might be at variance with their institution.
emails from the BBC (for example ) have this at the bottom

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.

what newspaper is going to print a disclamer such as this with every letter ?

[french frank]

People write letters to newspapers on any number of controversial subjects, giving details of their professional standing.

Welcome to the forum, John Skelton

I don't think there's any disagreement that the LPO's action was excessive (and that possibly telling the four members privately not to do it again, please, would have been an adequate response?).

But at that point we move on to your point about other professionals quoting their professional standing on letters. Up to a point, yes. But is it always appropriate?

"I believe the disruption of the Wigmore recital given by the Jerusalem Quartet was a disgrace.
Signed, Roger Wright, BBC"

"I believe the suspension without pay of Jonathan Ross was a disgrace.
Signed, Russell Brand, BBC"

Would either be acceptable? Wright an employee on long-term contract, Brand a freelance employed by the BBC, both commenting on issues in which they had some sort of professional interest.

I know that, as a freelance journalist, free to sell my services elsewhere, I would never have quoted the name of my newspaper in support of my journalistic credentials.

All that said, it really does come down to the severity of the action, surely, not their freedom to express their views?

[John Skelton]

I think there are quite specific instances where giving organisational details would be wrong because misleading or detrimental to the (perceived) neutrality of the organisation. The examples you cite & the example of journalists in general would be one. Similarly Civil Servants are contractually obliged not to engage in overt political activity. *

Unless LPO musicians are required to sign a contract saying don't associate the orchestra with your political beliefs I don't think the orchestra's response is disproportionate. I think it is wrong. It shouldn't be possible to tell people they can't do something after the event because what they have done is inconvenient.

The LPO is happy to engage in overt political campaigning when it suits it. As in this video criticising the policies of the "democratically elected" Dutch government http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rZH0eeyTl8.

I e mailed Timothy Walker suggesting that, in order to be consistent, he should suspend Vladimir Jurowski - as yet I've had no reply.

Thank you for the welcome to the forum!

* edit: to clarify: newspapers are seen as taking a collective or editorial position on political issues. So a journalist could be seen as using that to put across a personal view as editorial. Government officials are seen as administering policy. None of this applies to symphony orchestras.

[french frank]

Unless LPO musicians are required to sign a contract saying don't associate the orchestra with your political beliefs I don't think the orchestra's response is disproportionate. I think it is wrong. It shouldn't be possible to tell people they can't do something after the event because what they have done is inconvenient.

I went away to clean my teeth and thought belatedly that there is another line which should be pursued, and that is the motivation behind the suspension. If you are going to take (punitive) action of this sort it should be understood that a full explanation as to why you felt it necessary must be given. 'People might think you are speaking for the LPO' is both questionable and incomplete*.

On contracts, of course, we don't know what the players had signed up to, do we?

Edit: *I don't, of course, mean 'incomplete', I mean 'inadequate'. It may be 'complete' in that they really don't have any other motivation. I wonder if they would ever say: 'Because, as musicians, we consider it an act of treachery to attempt to deprive fellow musicians of work and therefore we're going to see how you like it.' (I know, I know, pass the can of worms ...)