Skip to content Skip to navigation

Censorship and the Youth Symphony

x

Error message

  • Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /home3/rachelsu/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Deprecated function: The each() function is deprecated. This message will be suppressed on further calls in menu_set_active_trail() (line 2404 of /home3/rachelsu/public_html/includes/menu.inc).

Over the past couple of days, there has been public controversy over the New York Youth Symphony’s decision to cancel the Carnegie Hall premiere of Jonas Tarm’s piece “Marsh u Nebuttya” (“March to Oblivion”). For those of you who do not know the backstory, after an initial performance of the piece at the United Palace Theater in Manhattan, the orchestra received a letter presumably from an audience member (it was sent anonymously, signed only as from “A Nazi Survivor”) complaining that the piece quotes the Nazi anthem “Horst Wessel” and is, therefore, inappropriate for a youth orchestra. The board then decided to cancel the premiere less than a week before the performance. I am a recent alumna of the NYYS; I performed with them for over two seasons and later became involved with the conducting program before I relocated to Germany in late January of this year.

Normally I am quite against censorship. But in this case, I actually agree with the orchestra’s decision, though not entirely with its publicized reasoning (more on that later). I think the composer behaved in an exploitative manner that was irresponsible and disrespectful to the musicians involved. We have a right to know the significance of the music we play. I attended several of the early rehearsals of “Marsh u Nebuttya” as a conducting student and even subbed in the flute section on one occasion. As someone who is not intimately familiar with Nazi anthems – which is probably also the case for the majority of the 12- to 22-year-olds in the ensemble – I did not notice the tune’s inclusion but rather was intrigued by the dark violence and texture of the music, which exhibited a compositional maturity that not every one of the symphony’s First Music commissions has.

As a musician, I often find myself humming or singing catchy melodies from favorite works or current repertoire as I go about my daily life. What if the “Horst Wessel” melody had wormed its way into my ear and I found myself singing it as I wandered down Broadway (or, to be specific to my current home, through the streets of Berlin, where the song was composed and is now illegal)? It is almost like teaching somebody a phrase in a foreign language without revealing that it is hate speech or something similarly loaded. Even though Tarm was making a conscious decision to not explicitly describe the piece in the program notes (which he claims is because he thinks the music should speak for itself), it is disrespectful to the orchestra’s members to expect them to parrot an anthem without being aware of its significance – even if the parroting is done in such a way as to problematize totalitarianism and violence, which I believe was Tarm’s intent. Even if a piece is not intended to be programmatic – if it is intended to be absolute music that is open to each individual’s interpretation – the explicit inclusion of symbolic content contradicts the attempt to eliminate all traces of concrete significance.

The orchestra’s initial notice to students stated that some of the content was determined to be inappropriate for a youth orchestra. I think this is a problematic assertion because it reflects a desire to shelter youth from historically painful subjects rather than respecting young people as being capable of thinking critically and feeling impacted by the political forces that have shaped and continue to shape our world. (As a side note, I have also noticed a larger trend that attempts to de-politicize so-called “art music” to ensure a “purity” of expression that relies entirely on aesthetics and form rather than on symbols in order promote classical music as ranking higher on the art hierarchy than other musics, and maybe also out of desperation to cling to all possible funding sources… but that is a topic for another time). It also implies that the mere inclusion of the anthem is grounds for its censorship, regardless of the way in which the composer chose to reflect upon the music’s meaning. That sort of censorship is something that I do not support because it does not allow artists to reclaim painful moments and transform them to promote the very reflection that hopefully moves us all toward a better future.

However, the orchestra later sent out a revised statement clarifying the rationale for cancellation, and I have since revised this post to indicate that I do in fact agree with the orchestra’s reasoning. The following is an important excerpt from their new statement (the entire text of which can be found here: http://nyys.org/news/2015/nyys-statement-removal-commissioned-orchestral...)

“When asked to explain the context and meaning of the piece, which would justify his use of this source, he refused. This was his obligation to our orchestra as a commissioned artist and particularly important given the fact he was working with students, ages 12-22. Had the composer revealed the sources of his piece and the context under which they were used upon submission of the final commission in September 2014, the piece and the notes could have served as an important teaching moment for our students.  However, without this information, and given the lack of transparency and lack of parental consent to engage with this music, we could not continue to feature his work on the program.”

Censorship in general is something of which I am not in favor. However, it is clear that the performance was cancelled not because of its content but because the composer had hidden this content and refused to offer an explanation. If he had chosen to explain the inclusion of these excerpts and left enough time for the musicians, their parents, and the board to have a forthright discussion about it, it is possible the piece would have been performed after all (which would be my hope). Well, it is too late for that, this time. But maybe this can serve as an opportunity for increased discussion about music and politics, history and expression.

 

External coverage:

Tags: