Friday, September 02, 2011

I know, as Max Boyce said, cos I was there

This post isn't really all that important in the grand scheme of things, but I was there, and so I kind of feel it's at least relevant to set out exactly what did and didn't happen at Prom 62. I had good seats and therefore had a good view of all the protests which took place, which as far as I can tell puts me at a significant advantage over Denis MacShane MP and over Oliver Kamm, both of whom were expressing quite strong views on the subject on Twitter last night. Here's my timeline, because I like timelines.

A couple of months ago: Mrs Digest and I (I have no idea why I'm still calling her Mrs Digest, by the way - her twitter handle is @TessRead) were looking over the Proms program to see which one to go to. I like the Bruch violin concerto, and the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra is probably going to be good - nearly all the big visiting national orchestras are. I don't really remember giving much of a second thought to the fact that it was specifically the Israeli national orchestra on this performance at the time, but I doubt it would have occupied me for very long if I had - I am not really a fan of cultural boycotts full stop and I am not at all aware of any way in which the IPO is used as an instrument of repression (an orchestra makes a poor tool of repression). Not even a pretty stretched "providing infrastructure for settlements" justification like the one used as a figleaf for the Bar-Ilan University boycott.

Before the concert: There were two pens of protestors (I am not sure what the technical term is - basically little squares made out of crash barriers) as we rocked up to the Albert Hall. To my eye, it looked like the pro-Israel one was rather better staffed than the Palestinian one, but this might have been because the Israeli flag is mostly white and thus shows up better in evening protests.

In the queue: People were handing out leaflets. The assembled British middle classes were basically tutting at them and telling them to get stuffed. A Palestinian bloke tried to hand me a leaflet entitled "Orchestra of the Age of Darkness", which was a reasonably good pun, but then he said "oh so you don't care about Palestinians then", so I indicated to him that the conversation had reached a natural end. Then another bloke tried to hand over a leaflet which as far as I could see was encouraging me to go and watch a performance for which I had bought tickets, while I was standing in the queue to go into the hall. Something of a waste of leafletage, I suggested, then he said something like "show your solidarity with Israel by attending this concert", so I told him to nark it too.

The performance starts: As I sit down I kind of start feeling a little bit guilty about being so sharp with the protestors - at the end of the day, I think it's entirely right that the Israel Philharmonic ought to be invited to perform at the Proms on their musical merits and will defend their right to be treated as a normal state, even to the extent of buying a stalls ticket, although probably no further. But ... surely it's also appropriate that there should be some element of protest by the large and active pro-Palestinian movement in this country, given that it is the orchestra of the Israeli state that is playing, and it's the Israeli state that has the fairly serious human rights problem. I make a mental note that I should possibly have given both groups of protestors more opportunity to speak, albeit that I really don't think anyone was going to change my mind about seeing the performance.

The performance continues. Webern's Passacaglia. To be honest I wasn't really getting on with it - not my favourite period of modernism. About two-thirds of the way through there is a quiet bit, and during this bit I realised that a) this piece doesn't have a choral section as evidence by the fact that the choir seats had been sold, and b) the choir appeared to be singing the Ode to Joy from Beethoven's 9th for some reason. I was slow on the uptake here and followed my neighbouring audience member's gaze to the choir stalls, where a bunch of protestors had stood up, unfurled large handkerchiefs with the letters of "FREE PALESTINE" on them, and started singing. Presumably there was some political or satirical lyric to the Beethoven, but I didn't hear any of the words and (since the quiet bit was followed by a noisy bit, which I think Zubin Mehta might have played up somewhat) I don't think anyone else did either. I caught the word "apartheid" being sung as the protestors were being shoved out. (During the process of ushering them out, the letters got mixed up and Tess is 100% positive that at one point they spelled "FREE PIES"). As one protestor was finally being shoved out the door she yelled "Israel is the only democracy in the world which ...(inaudible)". The total duration of this protest was about three minutes I think. The Webern continued for a short while and then ended to what was in my opinion a level of applause not really merited by the music. This was the only time all evening that the protests really interfered with the performance. I thought it was quite exciting.

The Bruch Concerto Mehta walked off, then the violin soloist came on, with what looked like a really nervous grin on his face. I began to feel a bit more sorry for the performers, and made a mental note that while my sympathies were currently divided, I would come off the fence immediately if there were any protests directed at the orchestra itself (suspense prevention: there weren't).

Mehta stood up and got ready to start, then there was a load of shouting from the top circle. Some people had unfurled two Palestinian flags. As far as I could tell, they weren't shouting anything other than "free Palestine". The audience were all hissing back at them - a guy in the row behind me was loudly shouting "Silence!" a few times. I think the orchestra had two false starts while the protestors were being shoved out - this was quite a difficult operation as they were right in the middle of a row. I think the people in that row were probably inconvenienced a bit. Then the music got started - there was a bit of an incongruous round of applause.

The Bruch was absolutely fantastic, and went off without further incident. What I mainly noticed is that because of the previous protest, the quiet bits in the concerto were actually really quite exciting; it added a real edge to them that you didn't know if someone was going to shout "Free Palestine" all of a sudden. I thought that the soloist looked nervous throughout - he was moving around a lot. But he played brilliantly. He did an encore (one of the Bach solo violin suites I think), which was uninterrupted. Massive applause, this time totally deserved.

The interval: The Arena Bar is the place to go for half-time drinks in the Albert Hall, by the way. While we were in there, Tess spotted one of the security people and decided to have a chat with him. Apparently, the protestors hadn’t been arrested or handed over to the police, just chucked out of the hall. It's not actually specifically a crime to make a nuisance of yourself during the Proms – I daresay that if John Law was being heavy handed it could be considered a breach of the peace, but the RAH management apparently took the view that it wasn't worth the trouble. Really exciting atmosphere.

The performance resumes: The second half of the concert was an Albeniz, then Rimsky-Korsakov's "capriccio espagnole". To be honest I really hate these orchestral attempts at sketches of Spain, but there you go. The start of the Albeniz was the biggest disturbance of the night. Mehta had reached the podium and ended up standing there for as much as five minutes, with maybe three false starts, as (I think) three separate groups of protestors did the same thing of unfurling Palestinian flags and shouting "Free Palestine". I think there was one more shouted reference to apartheid as they were marched out. As I say, I had good seats and so I was able to see the expression on Mehta's face and he really wasn't liking it. I got pretty bored with the whole thing myself actually – this protest certainly did impair the audience's enjoyment of their night out. I thought this was quite a poor piece really, although not helped by the fact that my seats were on exactly the same level as the percussionists, and therefore they sounded too loud to me. Never a particularly dignified sight, seeing a male professional percussionist having a go at the castanets. One of the cellists dropped his bow, which was quite hilarious.

Part 2 continues: That was it. There was no protest at the start of the Rimsky-Korsakov, although by that point I think the orchestra had got wise – they started playing pretty much the second Mehta's feet hit the podium. It is a somewhat better piece than the Albeniz, although still much too much of the dum da-da dum in harmonic minor scales that orchestral composers do when they get the idea to imitate a flamenco guitar. Rapturous applause and several curtain calls. Mehta then turned to the audience and said the only words he spoke all evening to us – to introduce their encore piece, the death of Tybalt from Rossini's Romeo & Juliet. Fair do's, that was really good. Then we went home. There were two pretty sad-looking types in the pro-Israel protest pen who were apparently thanking me for my solidarity on behalf of the Christian Friends of Israel. I didn't stop.

Then I got home: And found that a) various usual suspects were comparing what happened to "shades of the 1930s", and that b) the BBC had stopped the Radio 3 broadcast at some point (I still haven't found out when).

For the first, this is in my opinion daft. There are some people who think that any use of the word "apartheid" in the context of Israel is per se anti-Semitic, via a fairly involved multi-stage argument involving a very broad reading of the EU committee's proposed definition of anti-Semitism and some waffle about "unique criticism". I don't really agree with that view at all, but if you do, then yes I can confirm that the word was used, pretty faintly. But anyone claiming that the orchestra was prevented from playing and that the performance was prevented by Nazi thugs … well, either they had no idea what happened at Prom 62, or no idea what happened in Germany in the 1930s. It was a total of less than ten minutes of shouting, none of which was directed at the orchestra itself (and I am very clear about this because that was what I was specifically looking out for).

For the second, I think Radio 3 made the wrong decision. I don't think there is anything sacred about a classical music concert, any more than a sports game or a parade, and the protests weren't disproportionate and should have been shown. My personal enjoyment of the evening was much more affected by the decision to program half an hour of ersatz Iberian clickety-clack with far too many loud cymbals in an echoey hall. I think they should have continued to broadcast it, including the protests. I don't think at all that protesting at a performance by the Israeli national orchestra is weird or wrong; it's basically the kind of dialogue that is a large part of the reason that I'm opposed to cultural boycotts in the first place. There was no "heckler's veto" here; the protestors did their thing, then were asked to leave and as far as I can tell, did so peacefully. The protestors also had the common sense not to do any protesting in the standing section of the arena, where a punch-up might have ensued, which was something I was worrying about most of the night.

All in all, I give three stars out of five to the orchestra, and three stars to the protestors. I thought it was the best night out I've had so far this Proms, and the prospect that someone might be about to suddenly stand up and yell really does enliven the quiet bits. I shall be muttering "free palestine" to myself during boring passages for the rest of the season.

34 comments:

  1. any more than a sports game

    Most TV stations have policies of not showing and not even mentioning streakers these days, in order to deny them the oxygen of publicity. They wouldn't cut a whole game of course, but the problem with long pieces of classical music is that you can't really cut in and out of them very satisfactorily, so R3 had to call it one way or the other. Not knowing how it would pan out, I think their decision is understandable.

    I was searching for another musical example, but the closest I could find was this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5gMadfREqI&feature=player_embedded

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes I think it was understandable, but wrong. At the end of the day, as I say, it is entirely right to invite and broadcast the Israel Philharmonic, but it's not right to pretend that this is a totally uncontroversial thing to do, and (although I'm sure you're right that they are following the same principle as with streakers), I don't think that, within reason, anti-Israel protests at this concert were the equivalent of streakers, and I think they deserved to have their publicity. I don't like the idea of pretending that this wasn't an inherently politicised event - the audience, as far as I could see, were largely aware that they were making a political statement by being there.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Are you not going to tell us whether you were in evening dress? I had assumed that was the main point of writing this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I thought you were into heavy metal? ;-)

    Sweepstake on how many comments before this turns into the usual Israel/Palestine mess.

    ReplyDelete
  5. the audience, as far as I could see, were largely aware that they were making a political statement by being there

    What was the statement you made with you presence at the concert?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't know. Not any intentional one really. And the tickets sold out really quickly, so it is not as if my having not gone would have meant that there were empty seats in the hall. But the people in the Israel pen certainly seemed to think that I was de facto expressing solidarity with Israel by going there. I didn't join in the clucking and hissing at the protestors, so maybe that's a sort of statement? But listening to conversation in the bars, I think a *lot* of people had come specifically because it was the IPO and they regarded it as politically important. It wasn't a normal Proms audience.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Knowing all the above, would you go seem them again?

    ReplyDelete
  8. That should be "see them again".

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh christ yes, I wouldn't miss a show like that for quids. I still think cultural boycotts are silly. If I thought that they were taking unfair measures to prevent protestors, I might boycott the Albert Hall.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Joshua W. Burton9/04/2011 07:44:00 PM

    [T]he audience, as far as I could see, were largely aware that they were making a political statement by being there.

    Well, obviously they were. I'm a huge Mehta fan on continents that begin with A, and I even heard him conduct wearing a gas mask in '91. But I would honestly have thought twice about going to hear him at the Royal Albert.

    ReplyDelete
  11. How do you stand on sporting boycotts? I think one of the major problems with the boycotting issue and Israel is that it does seem to depend on an equivalence with South Africa, so there seems to have to be a comparison with apartheid which isn't wholly justified. The sporting boycott of South Africa was appropriate, at least to begin with, because their sports were segregated and you got the ridiculous situation that was encapsulated in the D'Oliveira affair. I'm not sure you can use this argument with Israel.

    Igor Belanov

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'd be inclined to be a bit harsher on the protestors, because I sympathise with the orchestra (and especially the soloist) a lot; it's nerve-racking enough to perform on stage, even if you're a professional. The Albert Hall is even worse than most venues because a) it's huge and b) it has a unique (to put it kindly) acoustic. (I know this because I have actually performed there.)

    And I would have been in bits if I'd had to keep thinking "hmm, a quiet bit coming up, is someone going to start shouting again" all the way through, as well as the normal Shepard's Prayer that goes through the mind of concert performers.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Apparently the same lot did the same thing when the Jerusalem Quartet played at the Wigmore Hall a few years ago, which I find a lot more unpleasant a thing to do (even if Tony Greenstein is right about the JQ being the IDF's favourite string quartet)

    ReplyDelete
  14. @ajay - I've performed on stage with pre-recorded music, when it would be impossible to stop and start. It's not quite that hard for professional musicians. Again with the classic analogy, should one have been inclined to be a bit harsher on Peter Hain because those Springboks might have found it nerve-racking to play through protests?

    @Igor - the situation of the Palestinian national football team isn't an exact parallel,no, but I won't bore you with the details of the troubles they've seen that might suggest that it would be proportionate to treat the Israeli FA as a pariah until they are resolved.

    DD - a well-written post, though one is left with the lingering impression that any attempt to engage you drives you towards the opposite viewpoint.
    I went to the Proms once, with two people who went on to be Galloway employees, did find two people from my year at college in the queue, had something of a panic attack and never went back again.

    I like both sorts of music, punk and progressive rock.

    ReplyDelete
  15. There's a difference between protesting and picketing outside the hall, and screwing around during the concert. One is a legitimate method of political protest. The other is just being a jerk, similar to (frex) slashing paintings in an art gallery to promote womens' suffrage.

    ReplyDelete
  16. No, I think that's being a bit precious.Obviously inside the hall causes more disruption, means that the audience isn't free to ignore the protest, gets more media attention.
    Perhaps it is counter-productive in terms of those immediately affected. But it seems to me that this is one of those counter-arguments to any protest or boycott:that they hurt the people they are trying to reach/help, that not inconveniencing anyone would win more support for their cause.
    I wouldn't imagine that anyone planning a protest (generally talking about the left here) doesn't consider the possible unintended consequences, and "jerk" doesn't fit the profile as far as I'm concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  17. There are degrees of screwing around during the concert, though. I think it's a lot more forgiveable to do so with an orchestra than a small group, to do so in a big hall than a small one, and to do so between pieces than during them. I think it can be judged on a case by case basis.

    In principal, I don't see much difference between sporting and cultural boycotts - except that refusing to attend performances by segregated teams/bands, or to give performances to segregated audiences isn't really a boycott - it's something that you ought to do whether or not there's a more general boycott on.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "one is left with the lingering impression that any attempt to engage you drives you towards the opposite viewpoint"

    I think that's true of a lot of people's view of a lot of protestors. I do wonder how effective this sort of stuff is in general.

    ReplyDelete
  19. One argument given for doing this kind of thing is that its sending a message to Israelis that they can't be expected to be treated like a normal state until the stop acting like a pariah. So its less about the audience, and more about Israel (a similar argument was given about S. Africa, and it does seem to have had some success as a tactic).

    Incidentally, Israel has imposed an educational, cultural and economic blockade on Palestine. Given this, I fail to see how any form of blockade is disproportionate. If this orchestra was Palestinian they almost certainly wouldn't be allowed to travel to the UK.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I think it's a lot more forgiveable to do so with an orchestra than a small group, to do so in a big hall than a small one

    Why? In a bigger hall (or with a bigger orchestra) you're being a jerk to more people. And the show has to be stopped anyway, whether there's an audience of 20 or one of 4000.

    sending a message to Israelis that they can't expect to be treated like a normal state

    I have a suspicion that they already know this.

    If this orchestra was Palestinian they almost certainly wouldn't be allowed to travel to the UK.

    And if this orchestra was trying to perform in Palestine, they'd be dead. So?

    ReplyDelete
  21. I have a suspicion that they already know this.
    And much of their propaganda is devoted to depicting as racist anyone who sends such a message.
    And if this orchestra was trying to perform in Palestine, they'd be dead.
    If they performed in the Occupied Territories, they would have the massed ranks of the IDF to prevent any protestors getting near them, let alone to harm them. And if any were harmed, the revenge on the Palestinians would be biblical. And I imagine they play in much of historic Palestine regularly without morbid care.

    ReplyDelete
  22. from a comment on Tony Greenstein's post:
    In 1987 I produced a documentary film called “Nablus – a Rebellious Town”.

    In the film the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra was shot playing Dvorak’s “NEW WORLD SYMPHONY” in a special concert dedicated “IN LOVE TO THE I.D.F” . The sequence was shot in the Occupied West Bank to a crowd of Israeli soldiers gathered in a natural amphitheater in the Jordan Valley.

    ReplyDelete
  23. And if this orchestra was trying to perform in Palestine, they'd be dead

    Really, what a very silly thing to say. Absolutely the sort of thing which gives the message "if I say something like this, nothing else I say needs to be taken seriously".

    ReplyDelete
  24. Being a concert-goer, I personally would prefer it if protestors didn't disrupt the performance itself: I'm also more than a bit iffy about people deciding to abrogate to themselves the right to decide when performances can be disrupted, or shut down. However, I can think of some points to the contrary, for example:

    (a) the protestors would surely say that the cause, and the repression it involves, is vastly more important than whether or not I hear an interrupted perormance of a given piece, and they'd surely be right ;

    (b) to tell the truth, some of the nost celebrated moments in music history have involved performances being interrupted (I'm thinking, say, of the first performance of The Rite of Spring, or of Bob Dylan's "Judas" moment). We wouldn't be without these moments, so it doesn't do for us to be too precious about it.

    I think practically all protestors get accused of harming their own cause, because they disrupt the lives of the people whose support they're trying to attract. Well, maybe, sometimes, but most of the time there's absolutely no way of knowing whether this will be the case or not. Come to that, I am quite sure that Peter Hain et al were anything but popular with rugby union fans who had shelled out good money in order to have a rare opportunity to see a great rugby union side. (When I say I'm sure, I mean I believe there was physical violence.) Peronally I was unamused when my enjoyment of the Headingley Test was ended by the George Davis Is Innocent crowd.

    What to do? Test the water, see if a certain sort of protest seems to aid the cause, and if it's not, stop doing it.

    None of which means I'm necessarily in favour of that particular protest, or of the particular way it worked, or of the cultural boycott per se, though I'll confess I'm sympathetic. But most protestors are vilified to some degree, when they start. Much later on, if their cause prevails, this tends to be forgotten. As there cause would be, if they did nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The Daily Politics just had a piece on the Greenham Common women, including Michael Heseltine's description of them as "a violent mob on the streets".

    Word verification: plato
    Hope there is some light getting into the cave.

    ReplyDelete
  26. In the film the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra was shot playing Dvorak’s “NEW WORLD SYMPHONY” in a special concert dedicated “IN LOVE TO THE I.D.F” .

    In 1987! 24 years ago!

    TBH, I think that the main reason I am instinctively against this kind of protest is that it seems to me to fall into the same category as bookburning - cultural destruction - and disrupting rugby matches just doesn't.

    I wouldn't back the protestors if they were publicly burning Amos Oz novels either (even if they'd bought them first) because burning books is a savage act.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I wouldn't back the protestors if they were publicly burning Amos Oz novels either
    A course of action none of the protestors have proposed, though I have seen Israel advocates say that banning Israeli books is the logical extension of this protest.
    Action p is wrong because it is similar to action q, and action q is just awful, is not an argument.
    Don't be the sort of person putting forward such non-arguments, he says, trying hard not to be rude.

    ReplyDelete
  28. WRT the South Africa analogy, the sports and trade boycotts were underwritten by the ANC which was, with all its faults the only serious claimant to leadership of the opposition. If the ANC had denounced the boycotts, then anybody who insisted in pursuing them anyway would have looked like a serious prat.

    Does anybody know what the position of the Palestinian Authority is on disrupting concerts by the IPO?

    Verification: "pangs". I feel your pain.

    chris y

    ReplyDelete
  29. I am of the contrariwise opinion that burning a book, if you have bought it, is a perfectly legitimate response to a text, but there you go.

    I don't really care about the audience in this context (as long as the performance doesn't actually get prevented from happening, which of course regularly does happen to a couple of controversial plays like Oleanna and Perdition). As I said, imperfectly, in the post, if you buy the ticket, you buy the ticket to the whole show, which might include buying a ticket to a bit of a protest if it's a controversial one. My view on size of hall vs size of orchestra is based on the effect on the performers. A big orchestra in a big hall can turn up the volume and drown the protestors out (which is what Mehta basically did). A small group in a small hall can't.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I'm not thinking of Oleanna am I? I mean the Vagina Monologues.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I saw another Philharmonic story with football fans and South Africa thrown in.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Does anybody know what the position of the Palestinian Authority is on disrupting concerts by the IPO?

    The call for a cultural (and academic) boycott has come from Palestinian civil society (or what there is of it). This is their web page

    The Scottish PSC did the same thing a few years ago - in that case they were arrested and charged with racially aggrevated breach of the peace. The case went to court and they were all acquitted, which may have had some bearing on the decision not to take further action with the protestors in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  33. TBH, I think that the main reason I am instinctively against this kind of protest is that it seems to me to fall into the same category as bookburning

    As I said before, the IDF has imposed a defacto cultural boycott on the Palestinians for about ten years now. Palestinian artists can't travel out, the IDF deliberately destroy their facilities. University students aren't allowed to attend lectures. Laborotories and libraries have been destroyed. Palestinian children are prevented from attending school, and terrorised when they do attend.

    A few protestors at a concert. Not quite the same really is it, though of course the latter might greatly inconvenience Ajay, which is the important metric here.

    ReplyDelete