Hey, I could even overlook his political rant if he didn't include the statement to never play for any US audience again. Sorry, but that's just ludicrous. He's achieving nothing other than ensuring his US fans are upset. And when you tell people to reserve their judgement, how are US fans supposed to do this? They have been cast aside by this man. Are they supposed to continue to follow him, support him and read up on his political thoughts him even though he has vowed to never grace them with his presence again? Couldn't he have used his position to make his feelings known without boycotting them at the same time?

Oh, and no, I'm not American. I haven't agreed with plenty of US foreign relations/military actions, but I wouldn't withdraw contact with the country to register my disapproval. If he had some deeply personal reason to act in this way, he didn't use his soapbox to inform his audience of it. If he's upset about the alliance between Poland and the US, he didn't target Poland with a boycott for their role in the agreement. If he does have sound reasons, he's a very poor communicator. I could have respected him if he said, "I don't agree with the actions of your government, I believe they are harmful to my country, but I am pleased to be able to share my music with this gracious audience". He wasn't gracious enough to do that. Instead he effectively punished his audience for the country they live in, with the implication that they voted for this so they are responsible for it. He's certainly not punishing the government policy makers anyway.

I agree that taking out one's feelings on everyone is not right, in this case his fans. Personally i wouldn't hold it against him, because it's not like i idolise the guy - there's plenty more pianists in the world - but of course it's unfair on his fans to abstain from performing in America, but that's his decision, i'm not going to command him to keep his emotions in check and stand in line. Most people generalise countries and their people as being one. A consequence of culture i would think.
But it's not the first time someone has done this, i read that Richter did the same, saying he would never return to America. Does this take anythign away from richter?
And as to punishing the respective govenments, I don't see how there is anyway way to punish an autonomous government. Politics and the public seem rather divided.
But eitherway it seems a proportion of the auidience in fact agreed with him.

[quote=wrHe got a standing ovation (but as we all know, in these decadent times, every performer gets a standing ovation, simply for showing up). [/quote]

Personally, I think the reason standing ovations have become so common is that people are taller and wider, and the seats in most concert halls are uncomfortable.

This is my view as well.

And I would not equate Zimerman's "performance" outburst with Horowitz's expression of support for MLK when he added the funeral march to his program. We may not agree where the line is drawn between an artist who expresses a political view in an acceptable way, and one who is "inconsiderate to the audience," but we should also be wary of simple equivalence between the two. Abdication of judgment is a form of judgment.

I would find the prospect of concerts attended mostly by the "liberal left" who think US policy is evil incarnate both sad and disconcerting. The idea that one should have to agree with the politics of the performer is toxic. Music should unite rather than divide.

Yet as I have said, I personally would no longer choose to see Zimerman perform anywhere. There are lots of pianists out there who I would pay to see above him, even if other people still swoon at the mere mention of Zimerman's name. Zimerman has tainted the waters for me enough that my money will stay firmly in my pocket should he ever change his mind and show up in my region.

We can find some agreement here, Ando. As I wrote in the last paragraph of my very long post, he did it awkwardly and ineffectively. Where we may have trouble is that you don't address Zimerman's sincerity or personal integrity. We would have to be mind readers to actually know, but my take is that he was sincere. What's yours?

You go on to write "I could have respected him if he said, 'I don't agree with the actions of your government, I believe they are harmful to my country, but I am pleased to be able to share my music with this gracious audience.'"

But in fact, he did say something reasonably close to that that, according to the LA Times article cited at the top of this thread: “But many more cheered. Zimerman responded by saying that America has far finer things to export than the military, and he thanked those who support democracy.”

Speaking of Democracy--of American Democracy--it is one thing to be in the minority of opinion, but it is quite another to remain silent in light of a perceived wrong, when freedom of speech is actually guaranteed in the constitution. Democracy is not a free ticket to moral innocence, as to some degree, it makes everyone complicit. This is the genius of democracy, and in that light, I don't see that Zimerman is far off the mark in indicting the entire country over what he perceives as a moral wrong, especially as he qualified his remarks by thanking those who support democracy.

Tomasino

I'm sure that Zimerman cares greatly if a few of us nobodies in some piano forum turn against him for this. Sorry, but I think it's rather impressively self important if anyone thinks they are going to somehow succeed in punishing him on a personal level by not turning up to his concerts as an individual, or even as a collective country. Do you think he's struggling to put food on the table? He doesn't need America and if he doesn't play there then it most certainly IS America's loss, not his.

I'm not saying it's a perfectly comparable situation, but would it have been okay to go to South Africa and play in all white concert halls during apartheid? The argument that artists should just keep their heads down doesn't hold much credibility.

Also, for those of you who believe that the sun revolves around America, I don't believe that Volodos has played there is between 5 or 10 years. I think he's managed reasonably enough with his career, wouldn't you say?

Wait until he has some financial downturn in his life
he'll beg to come back..most European countries don't like Americans..but when they suddenly stopped visiting there countries there economies dropped ..like a rock in a sock!..then they started make tv commercials we love americans please come back and visit! we love america!! folks its all about the money..don't kid yourselves..

Yes, yes, and Volodos should never perform in Russia again. After all, that regime supported Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic as Serbian forces butchered there way through Srebrenica. Then there is the little matter of Chechnya, where hundreds of thousands have been killed. Or perhaps he should have a grand concert at the Moscow Conservatory, at which he should insult the audience by denouncing Russian militarism and the creeping totalitarianization of Russian society and politics.

Lang Lang should never play in China. After all, the culture of Tibet is gradually being extirpated by a colonialist regime that has brutally occupied that land for hundreds of years. Or perhaps he should stand up at a concert in Beijing and spank the Chinese people, the vast majority of whom likely support the crushing of Tibet.

What a world if every self-important prima donna thinks insulting his audience is a fine idea.



How good of you to add that bolded caveat. I just love moral equivalence. This kind is suspension of judgment is why threads like this go down hill fast.

Of course my own post may hasten that transition ....

While we're on Zimerman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6PpDQ6miBg

Zimerman interview from 2008. I've never heard the man speak before so I thought the interview was very interesting.

Edit:

Listen to the final minute of interview section 4/5 and 5/5. This was recorded in 2008 and he speaks briefly of his political views on America. This preludes the 2009 Walt Disney Concert.

No, the nature of personal freedom is that they get to CHOOSE whether they want to make a stand or not. That's their decision, not mine or Zimmerman's. The crux of this is the fact that apparently some people think that artists are supposed to just collect their pay wherever its offered and get on with it. They can CHOOSE whether they wish to or not. If you don't like that then by all means don't go next time he goes to America. But if you seriously think that your personal veto will mean anything to anybody but yourself, then I'm afraid you're much mistaken.

Also, am I to take it that you would be opposed to Volodos or Lang Lang speaking out against these brutal regimes? You'd be as furious about that as about Zimmerman doing so in America? Sorry, but I'm not sure if you really thought that argument through before making it. If it was made at face value, then why are you denying Zimmerman the same right? If it was made sarcastically, as I suspect, are you seriously saying that these would be unreasonable issues to speak out about? That it would be worthy of ridicule to take such issues seriously and have a view upon them? That it would be foolhardy of them to do so (potentially putting their lives in danger) is not in question. But you seriously wish to imply that it might be frowned upon based upon the principle?

Presumably that's why Zimmerman refuses to make recordings that would earn him a packet and spends so much money taking his pianos on tour. If it were all about the money, I think he'd be rather more inclined to locally hire a mass produced Chinese for a pittance and pocket the difference.

Economics (which is specifically what you are referring to in the majority of that post) is indeed all about the money. I don't think it comes as a revelation to anybody that the economic policy of countries tends to be based around generating more revenue. However, as individuals, not everybody works on greed alone.

He has, but we need to keep in mind that the world is global. Volodos' albums are distributed by Sony Classical (part of a Japanese multinational with offices in New York City), and he sells plenty of albums through places like Amazon.com and Apple (both companies based in the US who have strong international ties.)

If Volodos is avoiding America because of political or economic reasons, then he's doing a poor job of it. He may not be coming here in the flesh, but he still has a presence here, both artistically and business-wise.

Also, when I hear that people in Europe dislike Americans, I don't take it seriously. Last time I visited Europe, I had people asking me how far away from the beach I lived and who my favorite baseball team was. I told them I was from the midwest, which looks a lot like Germany, that the beach was a thousand miles away and that I didn't like baseball much.

My point? There are people from Europe who are intelligent and understand that the US is a big country with lots of different people in it, and there are people from Europe who think all Americans' lives are like an episode of Baywatch or Desperate Housewives. (We do have people like that, but they're weird, so we make them live all the way over on the lower left side of the country.)

And the same is true for Americans. There are those who divide the rest of the world into two categories: socialist and third-world, and there are Americans who are much, MUCH smarter than that.

Kreisler. BRAVO.

Sure. I believe that Zimmerman acknowledged that himself in what he said. I don't recall anything suggesting that he believes that all Americans are idiots.

Also, I don't wish to imply that Volodos is vetoing America for political reasons. I believe he actually said something about disliking the pianos there. But my point was that that there is more to the world than posters here seem able or willing to acknowledge. Even if he had no recordings available in America, Volodos could survive more than comfortably on his European performances even if America had fallen into the sea like Atlantis. All those who are claiming that Zimmerman somehow 'needs' America are simply suffering delusional levels of self importance. Arguably Zimmerman may be rather arrogant, but it's absolutely true that American audiences need him more than he needs them. Sorry if that takes the power away from America, but that fact is not remotely in question. He could survive just fine if he avoided playing there entirely, just as Volodos has currently been doing for a number of years. As I said, the sun doesn't revolve around America. The world is a far bigger place. I'm not belittling America in general, but a lot of posters in the thread seem to have failed to realise that fact.

I agree, P*D. There is no excuse for insulting your audience. How does Zimerman know that all or even most of the audience members thought Guantanamo Bay was a good idea? We are not a democracy, we're a republic, and I know of many people who are unhappy with how things are going in this country but really can't do anything about. If he doesn't want to play in America, that's fine and I don't fault him for it. But to assume that what a government does is exactly what its citizens want is prejudiced.


I think this is where someone equivocates audience members to Hitler or Stalin as people who also liked to listen to live music.

Morodiene, you really ought to look up what Zimmerman said before arguing against a strawman. Painting your own picture in which he basically accused individual audience members of being to blame for Guantanamo bay shows that you have no idea as to what remarks were made. He acknowledged the audience specifically and separately and made it clear that he did not with to accuse them personally of anything. Leaping to assumptions without researching what was said is grossly unfair upon him.

I just just think choosing to listen to music based on the politics of the performer makes about as much sense as voting for politicians based on their musical ability.

I did read what he said, and I found his comments to be completely inappropriate in a recital setting. He was not apologizing, he was proselytizing and criticizing the audience. The article said he spoke in a quiet but angry voice that he wouldn't be playing in the States anymore. People paid money to hear him play, not hear his political views. When the audience, rightly so, demanded that he just play and stop talking, he insulted those that disagreed with him “Yes,” he answered, “some people when they hear the word military start marching.” I don't know the motives behind why the people left, but I'm sure there were those who were just upset because they spent a lot of money to hear music and got politics, and ye the accused them of be blind followers of the military by implication. His comments were not necessary and if he wanted to make a statement, he can certainly hold a press conference to do that. What he did was waste people's money.

Most of the articles leave out what he said next though. There are many where it says that he then spoke of his appreciation for those who believe in true democracy. I also saw one article where it said that he had said something to the audience making it clear he was speaking of American policy in general but did not wish to accuse the individual audience members of anything (perhaps part of the same statement about democracy?).

Do you think there would have been any cheering at all, if he basically just said "damn all you Americans"? There's been a lot of very selective reporting.

I also read that the whole thing took about two minutes. How does a two minute speech waste anybody's money? There's a lot of ridiculous hyperbole about this. If anyone is so patriotic that they feel the need to walk out if anyone points out how disgraceful it for a 'civilised' country to run Guantanamo bay, they are wasting their own money.

For God's sake, AMERICANS KILLED HIS PIANO! How do you expect a person to react to something like that? I think that would color my views of a country just a little teeny bit. I don't know how you all feel about your own instruments, but I don't think I'd ever get over it. My piano is irreplaceable, and my handmade, very fine lute is a treasure. No one has the right to wantonly destroy a Steinway. It's a perfect example of "security" turning to lunacy. To be pushed so far that you ship your piano around in pieces-- I can't imagine. And I wonder if Mr. Zimerman was reimbursed for that piano. If he was, it may well have been with taxpayer money that shouldn't have been wasted in this way.

Elene

Well to each his own, but personally, I have a lot more interest in a musician's politics than I do in a politician's music.

Was he reimbursed for the destruction of his piano?

You know, this sounds so far fetched that if it were not published in that article, I would have great problems believing that something like this could ever occur.

Well, the article provided at the beginning of this topic didn't state any of that, first of all. Thank you for clarifying that.

I still feel, however, that the recital is not the place to do it. Hold a press conference or do an interview, but don't take advantage of the fact that you have people listening to you play piano. If you're going to talk politics, then be clear that it's a political thing upfront, not guise it as a recital. Maybe something like "A recital to help raise awareness of the growing military strength in the United States" or whatever. Everything has a right place.

I didn't *kill* his piano. Destruction of property is not murder. That is not to say that I uphold what they did as right. I think we have lost a lot of our freedoms and they are slowly being eroded away in the guise of "national security". But I didn't have a say in what they should do with his piano. If i was consulted, I certainly would have told them they were being ridiculous. But the actions of a few in power do not represent the actions or opinions of a nation as a whole.

By the way, I was in the Land of Enchantment this summer. A beautiful place!

The main reason I'm surprised many people have such firm opinions.


I thought so too.

And besides:


Yes. This is a complex thing probably involving some combination of personal stuff with genuine political stuff, with the personal stuff being little relevant in a pure sense but completely understandable and maybe even inevitable in a human sense. Some posts have said the 2001 thing is unrelated to the 2009 thing. It's mistaken to assume that.

I don't think it does much for classical music if musicians are not to have any opinions. Look at the world of pop music. I don't particularly appreciate the fact that so many bland musicians become interesting due to political sentiments (personally I find Bob Dylan extremely tedious) but at least it gives people something to catch onto. If classical music is a world where spending two minutes discovering that the performer has real life opinions on something is too much to the audience, then sod them. If people don't want to hear that, they don't have to hear Zimmerman. It's no loss to him. As said before, Zimmerman is the one providing the service to anyone who wants to hear him- not America to him. I wouldn't like political opinions to become a gimmick for up and coming young performers, but the idea that performers are only allowed to smile politely at the audience is ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned, if he starts his performance with a bungled card trick and then spends five minutes riding around the stage on a unicycle, that's fine by me as long as I get to hear him play afterwards. But if he starts with a couple of minutes spent making a point about the way America has shamed itself in the eyes of world by breaking so many international laws, all the better.

This would be a much better response:

I would be very sad if someone incinerated my piano, but c'mon, show some class in public.

Edit: I've often been surprised by the rudeness of some of the American border officials. They act like they're doing you a huge favour by letting you into the country. I've never seen any Canadian border officials like that. However, I know better than to let that be the basis of my opinion of the American people.

I actually think he's sincere in a sort of deranged way. Sincerity and misguidedness can go hand-in-hand. By withdrawing from the US audience he is choosing not to continue the dialog any further. That isn't how you influence people. If his plan was to make a point, he did. But boycotts? That is taking it too far. Conscience should motivate somebody to say, "I must speak up", not, "I must boycott you and never speak to you again".



So he's aware of the divided opinions. Why bother with a boycott? Why not make his feelings known (on a regular basis if his conscience demands it), but still keep an open line of communication and more importantly, not shut out those who admire and support him (either musically or politically)? Can you think of a situation where boycotting was actually the instrument of change? It's usually getting tired of a boycott that institutes dialog, which institutes change. But you can proceed straight to dialog.


Well, I have heard and read many dissenting opinions on all sorts of things in the US, so I don't think "silence" would be quite accurate. The general masses are almost always passive - that's the way things usually are. Then there are left and right wing elements who are usually quite vocal by comparison. As long as you don't have an oppressive regime stifling free speech and controlling the airwaves, that is the modern "democracy". It's the same here in Australia and in the UK, and throughout most of the western world - we are composed mostly of passive grumblers who disagree with a lot of what their government says and does, but feel either powerless, unmotivated or ill-equipped to deal with it, so they concentrate on their smaller localised world where they feel more equipped. That's not a new phenomenon either.

My main gripe with Zimerman is that he's making a protest over something that involves many other complicit nations (including his own), but he's choosing to level his protest squarely at the US. I just find this kind of "anti US" stance very simplistic. It doesn't take into account the complicity of the rest of the world. It's making a very simple target and is basically pop-politics. As an Australian, I don't see why he shouldn't boycott us too. We are just as complicit in most of the actions of the US of the last few decades. Why not target us too? Just not popular enough I suspect, plus he can't target everybody or he'd have nowhere to go. Look deep enough and most nations will give you a reason to leave if you think like Zimerman. I don't know how aware of this you aware from within the US, but making anti-US statements with no real consideration is like a sport. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Worried about the state of the world? take a simple potshot at the US and feel better instantly without all that pesky detail and complexity! What Zimerman said may seem brave to you, but believe me, from outside the US, what he said is really quite typical and conformist. Anti-US is the new black.

Like many performers, Zimerman has a massive ego and I think he wants to feel powerful beyond his music. In the end, (as evidenced by his level of communication and analysis of world affairs) he's still just a pianist - one who has left a large chunk of his audience in the wilderness. Furthermore, he is being punitive about it - he's punishing nobody but music fans who quite possibly either agree with him or aren't politically focussed. You can be sure that the policy-makers of the US couldn't care less about him, and now that he's disengaged with his American music audience, he can't even influence them to influence their policy-makers. I don't think this stance works on any practical level - other than being a grand gesture befitting of a prima donna. But hey, he's a performer, maybe drama is his second love...

Now I think I'll shut up and play my piano....

I think some artists have a political voice and some don't. Obviously Beethoven's Eroica symphony had political overtones, as did his 9th symphony. There's also a strong sense of politics and social commentary in the works of people like Benjamin Britten, Frederic Rzewski and Cornelius Cardew.

Some people choose to champion a cause and find a voice for that cause in the arts. That's a good thing. The arts should be a place where political and social ideas are worked out.

But that's not really what happened in Zimerman's case. He delivered two messages on stage, and that dissonance proved unpalatable. Regardless of what the message was, the audience was expecting one thing and got another.

It reminds me of this story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/nyregion/02refund.html?_r=2

An audience expects comedic entertainment and is disappointed. Controversy ensues!

Another interesting question this poses is:

What do artists owe their audiences? And what can audiences expect? Do audiences have rights? Can they expect to get exactly what they want, or should they expect a challenge?

On one hand, we have Hannah Montana: Guaranteed entertainment for 10 year old girls.

On the other hand, we have Laurie Anderson: Guaranteed sociopolitical commentary and gender-neutral short hair.

But what if the artist product you're offering isn't so clearly defined? Or what if you have a strong point of view that isn't apparent from the marketing materials?