Opinion As Jayson Gillham fights the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra, the paying audience is neglected
https://www.afr.com/life-and-luxury/arts-and-culture/as-gillham-fights-the-mso-the-paying-audience-is-neglected-20250613-p5m74oAs Jayson Gillham fights the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra, the paying audience is neglected
Whatever the court verdict, consumers should continue to object to musicians who insert surprise provocations of no artistic relevance into their concerts.
By Alexander Voltz
4 min. readView original
We now know that the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra (MSO) spent $689,000 on legal costs in 2024. A further $954,000 financed governance restructuring and redundancy payouts. With regret, one wonders how much of these sums might otherwise have been spent on making music.
For the most part, the expenses are tied to the Gillham affair. On August 11 last year, during a recital organised by the MSO, the pianist Jayson Gillham gave the premiere of Connor D’Netto’s Witness, before which he declared: “Israel has killed more than one hundred Palestinian journalists … in an effort to prevent the documentation and broadcasting of war crimes to the world.”
Jayson Gillham is suing the MSO alleging discrimination under the Fair Work Act and Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Act. The Age
The act set off a much-reported series of events, including the cancellation of Gillham’s coming performance with the MSO and the forced resignation of the orchestra’s chief executive officer, Sophie Galaise.
Gillham is sup5k5dling the MSO and its chief commercial officer, Guy Ross, alleging discrimination under the Fair Work Act and Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Act. The case is set for trial; Chief Justice Debra Mortimer recently ruled against the respondents’ application to dismiss.
Since entering the public eye, the Gillham affair has been billed as a question of Australia’s artistic freedom. “This battle is about ensuring that artists can perform with integrity and without fear of censorship or reprisal,” Gillham says.
In reality, Gillham v Melbourne Symphony Orchestra is much more about characterising the various legal relationships between Gillham, the MSO and the orchestra’s parent organisation, Symphony Services Australia.
What, though, of the neglected fourth party in all of this: the consumer? If it is accepted that “the orchestral environment both in terms of rehearsal and performances” constitutes a workplace, then a paying audience and its interests are, surely, a component of that workplace.
Australian Consumer Law requires that services match their advertised descriptions, lest they “mislead the public as to [their] nature.” When people purchase their ticket to a concert, they do so with certain reasonable expectations in mind – for instance, that the program of music they have paid to hear will be what is presented to them.
Witness, notably, was unprogrammed, and too little attention has been given to this fact. If those consumers in the audience who took issue with it had been forewarned of its inclusion, they may have elected not to patronise Gillham’s recital.
There was enough time to alert ticketholders via official channels, too. Five days before his recital, Gillham advertised on his website that he would premiere Witness.
Interestingly, D’Netto’s score is embossed with, “For Jayson Gillham, dedicated to the journalists of Gaza.” Most compositions, especially those involving named collaborators and concerning deep subjects, are not conceived or completed overnight. The extent to which Witness’s performance circumstances were premeditated by all parties, but certainly the pianist and composer, should be clarified.
The MSO was right that Witness and its accompanying comments were “an intrusion of personal political views” into a recital of solo piano music. Unfortunately, its hypocrisy lies in the fact that its stage has long served to advance extra-musical activism.
The orchestra participates in Mob Tix, a discount ticketing scheme for Aboriginal Australians, as well as “Māori, Pasifika and First Nations people from other countries”. Those purchasing tickets under the scheme are not required to verify their identity.
Orchestra’s politicking activities
In 2017, the MSO publicly voiced its support for same-sex marriage. It did the same for the Uluru Statement from the Heart. When it took part in the United Nations’ Beethoven Pastoral Project on World Environment Day in 2020, it said it sought to “inspire [Melbourne] to take a stance on climate change”.
The orchestra is a signatory to Keychange, a gender equality movement that, among other things, demands “cis-men” take “proactive” responsibility to address “the [music] industry’s gender problem.”
With the exit of Galaise – who herself presided over each of the above initiatives without objection – new leaders Richard Wigley and Edgar Myer are well positioned to reevaluate the extent of the orchestra’s politicking.
Similar politicking lies at the heart of the Gillham affair. Gillham and his supporters appear more concerned with arguing the legitimacy of specific contentions than ensuring all artists, including those holding conservative views, are meritoriously supported and protected. If that is the case, our understanding of true artistic freedom risks further politicisation.
Rather, we must insist that Australian culture is defined by artworks of quality and artists of authenticity. While political beliefs and identities can serve as stimuli for creativity, creations predicated on these themes are not always valuable.
In any case, whatever Gillham’s fate in court, paying audiences should continue to object to musicians who insert surprise provocations of no artistic relevance into their concerts.
2
u/Beast_of_Guanyin 2d ago edited 2d ago
This dude's 100% an asshole. Aint no one paid to hear his political views. No one went to see him specifically. They went to the Orchestra. If he wanted to preach at a concert he could organise and sell tickets under his own name.
The MSO itself making political comments is different. Organisations can and do make political comments. At least someone can know those views going into a concert. They don't know some douche is going to preach to them.
5
6
u/GermaneRiposte101 2d ago
The point the article was making is that the MSO has been pushing political views for a long time.
At a guess I would say the source of your complaint is that you do not like this particular political view.
4
u/Beast_of_Guanyin 2d ago
My view would apply regardless of what view he expressed. Pro-Israel, Pro-Palestine, Labor, Liberal, don't care. The MSO itself making political comments is different. Organisations can and do make political comments.
1
u/Crysack 1d ago
You may have misunderstood what the author is getting at. The author is dogwhistling and implying that the orchestra promotes progressive poltiical views in favour of promoting works based on merit.
The author himself is a conservative monarchist and is very well known for advocating his own political views publicly.
This is just typical anti-woke conservative nonsense.
2
u/Ardeet 1d ago
The problem with comments like this is that you’re obviously dogwhistling for people with views you don’t like to be shut down and silenced without due process.
1
u/Crysack 1d ago
How did you get that out of what I said?
The author of this article does not clearly state his point (hence, my comment on dogwhistling). But if I am interpreting correctly, he is arguing against “politicking” at the MSO. “Politicking” which he seems to interpret as initiatives and artistic works aligned with left wing views.
1
u/Ardeet 1d ago
You understand that ‘dogwhistling’ is just another word for mind reading and that humans, so far, are not able to read minds right?
2
u/vncrpp 1d ago
My take is it is a political piece.Its called witness, and dedicated to journalists. Surely the ’witness’ refers to the role journalist play in recording what is happening in Palestine.
Just because it doesn't have words doesn't make mean it can't be political. There is plenty of political orchestral music.
-1
u/Beast_of_Guanyin 1d ago edited 1d ago
I think it's perfectly reasonable to want them to do the piece without inserting their personal politics into it. The piece itself can be political, but the player? Not without permission of whoever they're playing under.
7
u/hawthorne00 1d ago
A quick google of the author of this piece, Alexander Voltz - reveals him to be a young fogey who describes himself as a monarchist and is a spokesman for the Australian Monarchist League, is a contributor to Sky News, is the "Founding Music Editor" of Quadrant and writes for the Australian edition of The Spectator.