Gustavo Dudamel writes NY Times op-ed on Venezuela

The LA Phil music director calls on the Maduro regime to stop tinkering with the constitution and do something to halt the bloodshed in the streets. His final par is probably too diplomatic to have much impact.

As a conductor, I have learned that our society, like an orchestra, is formed by a large number of people, all of them different and unique, each with his or her own ideas, personal convictions and visions of the world. This wonderful diversity means that in politics, as in music, no absolute truths exist. In order to thrive as a society (as well as to achieve musical excellence), we must create a common frame of reference in which all individuals feel included despite their differences, one that minimizes the noise and cacophony of disagreement and allows us to fine-tune, through plurality and diverging points of view.

Full op-ed here. There is an on-page button you can click to read the article in the original Spanish.

 

share this

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on google
  • A louder statement would be to stop accepting regime monies for El Sistema while the country starves. This is a nothingburger of an op-ed.

    • There are many creatures on this earth that live for no purpose other than to eat, procreate and die. That’s enough for them, but humans require more than that. I suppose it’s a tiresome old cliche and yet this truism still has meaning “man does not live by bread alone” People are not starving in Venezuela because of any money spent on El Sistema. However, for a lot of kids El Sistema provides one of the few bright spots of hope in a world that must seem terribly hopeless. That’s something worth spending money on. That’s something that’s worth living for. If El Sistema was taking the food out of people’s mouths you might have a point, but it isn’t. If El Sistema was eliminated tomorrow people would be just as hungry and their lives would be even emptier.

  • “His final par is probably too diplomatic to have much impact.”

    That exposes a complete lack of knowledge of political realities, to think that harsh(er) wordings can achieve anything more.
    If one one wants change, one assesses the situation and decides if the change has to come by the word or by the sword.
    If the word is chosen, then it must be appropriate and acceptable to the receiver, not be mistaken with the sword.
    If the sword is chosen, then it has to be used with ultimate warrior skill and dedication to kill. Obviously the sword can not be Dudamel’s weapon of choice.

  • >