Bold move. They seem to know where they want to draw the line pretty well here. While most, if not all, festivals around the world are sponsored and endorsed by big capitalist brands of all sorts, including on-site deals with largo tobacco companies and exclusive beer deals. And a 500? grant is hardly a political statement.
Plus it's not uncommon that culture festivals receive donations from nation states, both local and foreign. Maybe they just went into the deal uninformed.

Definitely a shitty decision.

Written by Desha on 23.08.2017 at 14:31

Definitely a shitty decision.

I agree and in some way rasistic to. Seems I am only one in this planet who likes and supports 90% of all what izreal does?

Written by Bad English on 23.08.2017 at 16:47

Seems I am only one in this planet who likes and supports 90% of all what izreal does?

You're among an increasingly small minority, that's for sure

Written by corrupt on 23.08.2017 at 14:11
Plus it's not uncommon that culture festivals receive donations from nation states, both local and foreign. Maybe they just went into the deal uninformed.

I've heard that it's a common custom (Island would be a good example). This is why I can't really understand the move they did because from the looks of it... It feels like the only reason was that some artists came from the wrong country.

Written by Bad English on 23.08.2017 at 16:47

Written by Desha on 23.08.2017 at 14:31

Definitely a shitty decision.

I agree and in some way rasistic to. Seems I am only one in this planet who likes and supports 90% of all what izreal does?

can't tell if that was sarcasm or not.

Everyone is jumping on the 500? funding as if it was obviously the reason.

OP don't seem to imply so in the statement, but rather seem to focus on something else. Or at least that is how I read the message.

It is quite easy to understand: the fact the BDS movement has targeted the fest, some boycots are flying around, bands cancelling because of the funding (they specified so, unlike OP) and all mean that the festival itself has been tainted with political implications.
So being part of the festival makes you part of the whole feud, since there is a backdrop to the whole situation that a single band from Finland has no control over. It was there beforehand.
Therefore, in order to avoid any implication in it, the band just cancels. Not because they agree with the boycott or whatever, but to stay away.
Since the band did not position itself at any moment (please indicate so if it is the case) and its objective was apparently to avoid all this, pulling out beforehand is the way to go.
As for people saying that in itself it is a political statement, I think that is bullshit.
If they stayed, considering the climate around the fest, that could actually be perceived as a statement. I think that is what the band is trying to avoid.
If they pull out without seeking a political stance (as the statement implies, there is no calling out), there is no reason to believe the 500? is the motivation.

Written by Vombatus on 23.08.2017 at 23:47

Everyone is jumping on the 500� funding as if it was obviously the reason.

[...]
If they pull out without seeking a political stance (as the statement implies, there is no calling out), there is no reason to believe the 500� is the motivation.

That's what I was trying to figure out. By that logic though, any festival where anticapitalists protest against aggressive branding by big companies could develop a similar climate. I was wondering if that would also warrant cancelling a show for them. These topics are always political, whether a nation state is involved directly or not.

Part of being an artist today is finding a way to deal with these issues. Some sports have similar problems. But no Formula One driver would pull out of a race because Quatar has a questionable civil rights situation. They just claim it's a sport and that is by definition non-political (as in, it's not their place to make a statement like that). The politics of it happen on another level.

I'm not implying any political stance on the band's side. But I still cannot tell why they did it. And i wonder where such a road would take a band once they decide to stick to it. I'd certainly appreciate if more bands took stances like this. Maybe that would get a few festivals to rethink their practices. Maybe my problem is that I find a transparent donation by a nation state to a culture festival a way more honest and open move than endorsement by companies under the Nestle or Coca Cola brand, for example. And those are just examples, I don't intend to spark a discussion about the ethics of these companies.

Written by Vombatus on 23.08.2017 at 23:47

Everyone is jumping on the 500? funding as if it was obviously the reason.
[...] there is no reason to believe the 500? is the motivation.

Of course there is reason to believe that. This is literally the only "controversy" that's around.
And the band haven't denied that it was to blame when tons of people pointed it out in the comments, so this implies the commenters were not so wrong as to warrent a correction.
Add to that their claim that the money "made it political". Everything's political.

Written by Auntie Sahar on 23.08.2017 at 19:22

Written by Bad English on 23.08.2017 at 16:47

Seems I am only one in this planet who likes and supports 90% of all what izreal does?

You're among an increasingly small minority, that's for sure

I like that way be cast out and weird, its not like I agree 100% but often I agree, Isreal has balls what EU has not, even USA has not nowadays. And I don't wanna discuss it here and go off topic, It might be consequences, but protest such way as not play in a gig what has been founded by state is stupid. Its like agree play in Crimea or Isis wedding party

Written by corrupt on 24.08.2017 at 07:52

That's what I was trying to figure out. By that logic though, any festival where anticapitalists protest against aggressive branding by big companies could develop a similar climate. I was wondering if that would also warrant cancelling a show for them. These topics are always political, whether a nation state is involved directly or not.

I agree with this.

Quote:

Part of being an artist today is finding a way to deal with these issues. Some sports have similar problems. But no Formula One driver would pull out of a race because Quatar has a questionable civil rights situation. They just claim it's a sport and that is by definition non-political (as in, it's not their place to make a statement like that). The politics of it happen on another level.

I think the situation here is different. A F1 driver knows beforehand where he will be racing and it will be known if the vent has a political connotation. Naturally, his claim of it being a sport (and his job) is fine. I wouldn't criticize that.
However, for a music festival in Germany, it does not necessarily have a political background to it from the start. If afterwards a country decides to fund and it gets all political, it does become so.

So for the festival, its transformation into a political situation is a a posteriori consequence compared to a a priori in the case of F1 in Qatar (just to follow the examples). Same consequences but two different ideas behind it.
This is my whole point, which I tried to explain in the previous post and got ignored , and makes me think that the Pazuzu reasoning behind is not the 500euros but the alteration of the climate surrounding the fest into something different than initially intended.

Quote:

I'm not implying any political stance on the band's side. But I still cannot tell why they did it. And i wonder where such a road would take a band once they decide to stick to it. I'd certainly appreciate if more bands took stances like this. Maybe that would get a few festivals to rethink their practices. Maybe my problem is that I find a transparent donation by a nation state to a culture festival a way more honest and open move than endorsement by companies under the Nestle or Coca Cola brand, for example. And those are just examples, I don't intend to spark a discussion about the ethics of these companies.

I agree with this again.

In a way, I don't think we really know what the pazuzu guys are thinking. Nor do I really bother with what happens in a fest in Germany, but I found quite simplistic to jump on the "omg 500euro!!!" controversy without pondering a bit more. Maybe they are actually really bothered with 500 euros, who knows

It isn't about the money but about which government subsidized it. And that makes it political. You don't hear them about f.e. Iceland's government subsidizing bands, but now because it is the Israëli embassy they are all up in arms. (after some organizations started complaining and threatening with bans)

Written by Vombatus on 24.08.2017 at 14:59

This is my whole point, which I tried to explain in the previous post and got ignored , and makes me think that the Pazuzu reasoning behind is not the 500euros but the alteration of the climate surrounding the fest into something different than initially intended.

In a way, I don't think we really know what the pazuzu guys are thinking. Nor do I really bother with what happens in a fest in Germany, but I found quite simplistic to jump on the "omg 500euro!!!" controversy without pondering a bit more. Maybe they are actually really bothered with 500 euros, who knows

I didn't ignore your point as much as just not get it at the time. Thanks for the clarification.
I did a bit of reading in the meantime and it seems K7 and Marcel are right. It's not obvious from this news item but the boycott indeed takes offense in funding specifically by Israel. It was started by an international activist network protesting against Israels violation of international law. Apparently it started with a few artist of arab origin pulling out and OP followed that lead.
I can see how this is more political than branding and the activists have a few big acts in their ranks (Roger Waters for example) so it looks like they have some weight in the music business.

I guess at that point it was a lose-lose situation for OP. Pull out and make a political statement in the process or stay on the bill and be made one. Their explanation made it clear they would like their action seen as above politics and I can respect that.