Posts

concert

Music Industry Figures Accuse BBC Of ‘Arbitrary And Disproportionate’ Changes Following Bob Vylan Glastonbury Set 

/in , /by

Major figures in the music industry are accusing the BBC of making “arbitrary and disproportionate” changes to how it covers live music after the controversy regarding Bob Vylan’s recent Glastonbury festival performance. 

Following this year’s Glastonbury festival, the BBC found itself under a heap of pressure from the government for live streaming Bob Vylan’s set in which they led chants of “death, death to the IDF,” in reference to the Israel Defense Forces and the conflict in Palestine. 

Embed from Getty Images

The concern from the industry relates to artists being worried that the BBC can simply cut any musical performance that they deem to be high risk. 

The performance itself wasn’t shown on television, but was instead available via on-demand livestream on iPlayer where it was available for five hours. Tim Davie, the BBC’s director general, and Samir Shah, the chair, have apologized and stated that disciplinary action will be expected to occur. 

Many insiders to the music industry are claiming that the BBC is overreacting, and Glastonbury coverage has been running for years without any serious incidents. The biggest concern from artists, however, is concerns over free speech. 

Head of the Featured Artists Coalition (FAC), which is the UK body representing musical artists, David Martin, stated that the network should rethink their decisions. 

“The BBC is absolutely fundamental to the continued success of British music, and particularly vital to supporting our new and emerging artists’ development,” he said.

“The FAC wholeheartedly supports the network’s remit for public service broadcasting, something which is encapsulated by their Glastonbury coverage. That remit also comes with responsibilities. The BBC is rightly held to the highest regulatory, legal and editorial standards. If those standards have been breached, then there should be appropriate guidelines to follow.”

“But the idea of preemptively grading artists according to their ’risk’ factor feels arbitrary and disproportionate – and a dangerous step towards censorship. That kind of approach could potentially curtail artistic freedom around certain genres and inadvertently punish those who are simply expressing their views. It’s a road I think we should resist going down.

Embed from Getty Images

“Live music is incredibly important to the UK. It provides entertainment and cultural capital. But it’s also an art form, and our performers should be free to challenge, provoke and take risks.”

According to the Guardian, A BBC spokesperson said: 

“We will continue to bring audiences a range of music performances, both live and on-demand, and we respect artists’ freedom of expression. However, Bob Vylan’s offensive and deplorable behaviour on one of our Glastonbury live streams was completely unacceptable and we are sorry it appeared on the BBC.

“This is why we have made immediate changes to livestreaming music events, and these alongside our editorial guidelines will shape our plans going forward.”

The general secretary of the Musicians’ Union, Naomi Pohl, stated that she’s concerned over the BBC’s decision to be more cautious and hesitant about what music performances they decide to broadcast. 

“We really don’t want to see the BBC broadcasting fewer live events,” she said.

 “It’s such a shame there has been this shadow cast over this year’s Glastonbury coverage, because it has had fantastic viewing figures. It’s been all over iPlayer and people have been tuning in live.

“We need to talk to the BBC about it directly. But I don’t want to see any broadcasters now broadcasting fewer live events because they don’t want to take the risk. The whole of the music industry will be feeling that, because it’s so crucial to us to have the BBC,” she said.

MLB To Test New Experimental Rules In Minor Leagues

/in , /by

Robot umpires and larger bases are just some of the major changes the MLB will be testing out.

Read more
Kansas City Chiefs

Kansas City Chiefs Ban Fans From Wearing Native American Attire To Games 

/in , /by

The Kansas City Chiefs announced a new set of stadium rules this week for fans who plan on attending any home games at Arrowhead Stadium in the future. The rules state that all fans are banned from wearing Native American headdresses, face paint, and other types of traditional attire that is sacred to Native culture. 

Starting at the beginning of this season, fans will be prohibited from wearing headdresses into the stadium, and will be asked upon arrival to remove any face paint that is “styled in a way that references or appropriates American Indian cultures and traditions,” according to the statement. The Chiefs are the current Super Bowl champions, but have been placed under fire in recent years due to their inappropriate name and practices that emulate Native culture despite not having any Native American team members. 

Embed from Getty Images

The team opted to keep their name, but is reviewing two longtime traditions; the pre-game drum ceremony and the “Arrowhead chop” that many players would gesture mid-game. This gesture is also called the tomahawk chop, and is a swift one-arm movement followed by a fake and stereotypical war chant that Native Americans claim has never been a part of their history. 

The appropriation of white fans wearing traditional headdresses and war paint has also been a major topic of discussion within the past few years. Cultural appropriation is defined as the “unacknowledged and inappropriate adoption of the customs, practices, ideas, etc. of one people or society by members of another, and typically more dominant people or society.” 

For example, when white people put their hair in dreadlocks or cornrows – hair styles that originated in the black community as a means of maintaining their curlier/coarse hair texture – they’re appropriating that style from the black community.

Embed from Getty Images

So when Native Americans turn on their televisions to a group of white sports fans wearing traditional headdresses that are sacred to certain traditions/practices, it feels dehumanizing, and performative. It also exemplifies the privilege that those appropriating individuals have; a white person can simply take off the headdress or take out the dread locks and will never have to worry about enduring the racism and prejudices that those minority groups are threatened with every single day. 

Kevin Allis, the CEO of the National Congress of American Indians recently spoke with the media about these appropriations from the Chiefs specifically, and the damage it does when they portray Native Americans as being “homogeneous and mythical.”  

“Our goal was to gain a better understanding of the issues facing American Indian communities and explore opportunities to both raise awareness of American Indian cultures and celebrate the rich traditions of tribes with a historic connection to the Kansas City area.”

The team faced major pressures from national committees to reflect on this behavior especially after Washington’s NFL franchise removed their longtime team name after years of Native Americans claiming it was racist and rooted in violence against Native individuals. The team claimed that they recently began consulting with a national organization that works on issues specifically targeting American Native communities.