BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

Trouble In Berlin: Whatever You Do, Don't Make A Shred Video Of Superstar Violinist Daniel Hope

This article is more than 6 years old.

...or you will lose your job and face various other recriminations.

Or at least that is what Daniel Hope would like to happen, if this following open letter is to be believed. But from the top:

© Nicolas_Zonvi

It appears that around the jolly Christmas season the young journalist and dramaturge Arno Lücker, along with co-conspirator Carlotta Joachim (a music student and a prize-winning junior musician and composer herself), put together a music video – a so called “shred,” the kind of which exist about several of the greatest musicians with a YouTube presence (see one with Itzhak Perlman below) – in which they poked some fun at Daniel Hope and composer/pianist Ludovico Einaudi (already the subject of several such shreds).

It turns out that they poked at the wrong guy. Despite his carefully groomed public image as a cheery, genial multitalented classical musician with a decidedly hip edge, Daniel Hope released the hounds – in form of his lawyers. Cease and desist and threat of fine and all that good stuff. But it appears that this was not enough: For once Daniel Hope’s wrath was incurred, he did not cease to throw around his weight with the employer of Arno Lücker, the Berliner Konzerthaus, until it told Lücker, a freelance at the Konzerthaus, that his services were no longer needed – despite the latter’s immediately conciliatory reaction to the lawyers’ demands and the plain obvious lack of malice of his satirical contribution to YouTube.

At least this is what we gather from the response of Moritz Eggert’s, who – as a co-founder of the blog on which the video was published – was prompted to write an open letter to Daniel Hope, explaining the background, detailing the chain of events and Daniel Hope’s reaction, and pleading reason. Eggert’s letter is cited in full (in translation, with permission) below.

If this is in fact how matters transpired, it is a “[La] Reveal Magnifico” (as the NFL’s Dan Hanzus would say) – a tearing away of the curtains of a superficial niceness, revealing the true character of those involved. Only it is very difficult to say who gets off worse, in this case, Daniel Hope or the Berliner Konzerthaus. The former seems to display a case of severe humorlessness, considerable insecurity, liberally spiced with a vengeful streak. Is it more revealing that he considered the shred legitimate criticism (which is to say: worth taking seriously and responding forcefully to) or how he responded thereafter? We know that he is not one who likes criticism of any kind other than the obsequious type (of which he gets plenty in the German and English press). In an article in the bilingual Van Magazine titled “Critic Bashing” he was called out for taking a dig at me, actually[1], responding to my Forbes article “The Real Top 10 Bach Recordings” in a public Facebook comment by suggesting that “it demonstrates the egregious level to which certain internet music journalism has sunk.”

But let us let Daniel Hope be Daniel Hope. His actions as detailed in Eggert’s letter below speak for themselves… including those where he contacted the magazine for which Lücker also writes and tried to attack freedom of speech and the freedom of the press – which apparently is anyone’s natural instinct these days, when reading something one doesn’t like. (Incidentally, if you want to read something nice about Hope, his superb “Vivaldi / Four Seasons Recomposed” CD was one of my favorite releases in 2012.)

[Edit Jan. 20th & 21st: This article, as per the request of Andy Fixmer, Vice President, Global Communications of the Universal Music Group, to which Deutsche Grammophon belongs, has been further edited by deleting a previously included quote that came from the Van Magazine article "Who's Afraid of Daniel Hope" by Jeffrey Arlo Brown and Harmtut Welscher and which has been claimed to be false.]

Not much less of a culprit, methinks, is the Berliner Konzerthaus, which allowed itself to be bullied into – or convinced of – or happily abetted – the firing of one of their own employees removing of an employee[2] because a thin-skinned diva said so. Rather than standing up for one of their own, they obsequiously went to sack the little, the expendable guy… in order not to incur the wrath of the locally very present and popular star violinist. Or to appease a close friend of the upper management, as it were… Whichever it is (see footnote), it’s a PR disaster for the Berliner Konzerthaus, because even if the events did not transpire just like this, it certainly appears as though they sensed the threat of Hope’s leverage and rushed to minimize economic damage for the apparently small prize of throwing integrity to the four winds. Even in the best case scenario they are playing the humor police to please a performer with whom they are close.

Hard to believe that at the source of this is an innocuous – juvenile or not – YouTube video and an insecure guy who can’t take a joke. One of my favorite parts in Moritz Eggert’s response – who outs himself as a true fan of Daniel Hope (recently praised by Peter Krause in Die Welt[3] for being a “clever music-communicator and reasonably decent violinist” – is this:

“[Levity] is so important [in classical music], since the cliché of classical music is rather one of thin-lipped humorlessness. Stern-looking busts peer down at us from uprights or auditoriums; drill is the first order… and the first hint of coughing and crinkling in a concert house must be suppressed at all cost. It can only be helpful for the occasional bit of laughter to break through this phalanx of seriousness… It is my sincere belief that the health of the musical scene can be measured to a large degree in how well it can take a joke; how well it deals with being poked fun at.”

A lack of humor is one of the classical music business' more pressing problems, just after cowardice in all its many manifestations. This is an exemplary case in that it combines both – and yet there is hope. Hope that Hope admits a mistake and apologizes to Arno Lücker, and hope that the Konzerthaus realizes its even greater, downright toxic mistake of trying to attain a temporary benefit at the cost of something far more valuable and stands, belatedly, by their guy. It’s not clear if that might not already have happened: The U.K. blogger Norman Lebrecht suggested, in a post in which he habitually got half his facts wrong, that he received the following statement from Daniel Hope:

Yesterday, an open letter was published on social networks, which prompts me to make the following correction: The heart of the matter is a Shred video, edited by Arno Lücker, which mixes a performance of mine with explicit words about genitalia, excrement, and sexual acts. It appears to the viewers that I am saying these things about myself. An apology by Mr. Lücker in a personal letter has settled the matter for me. I hope we can now all apply ourselves to our vocation, namely music.

Does this settle it (conveniently) after the ridding of pesky Mr. Lücker or does this indicate that Daniel Hope hopes-wishes-insists that Arno Lücker gets re-hired or had never been let go in the first place? Because if it doesn’t, he is adding cynicism to vindictiveness.

P.S. Oh - and that video really needs to be uploaded again, because now we are curious!

P.P.S. As a musician friend e-mailed me a short while ago, alternatively this: The smartest thing [Daniel Hope] could do is apologize himself and collaborate on a really funny self-parody video shred. Something like a deliberate remake of this:

An Open Letter to Daniel Hope
By Moritz Eggert; January 15th, 2018

Dear Daniel Hope,

We haven’t met but I have seen you often, of course: on stage, on TV – even in the movie theater. There’s no question that you are a successful and popular communicator of music, an ever-present, highly talented and multi-faceted violinist, whose dearest wish it is to bring classical music to the people. I admire that.

The reason I’m writing you: a little while ago one of our authors, Arno Lücker, published a so-called “shred” of you and Ludovico Einaudi on this blog. “Shreds” are a genre of satirical videos that take music videos or a live performance and dub over the audio with ridiculous, usually absurdly bad sounds. They are usually created by musical enthusiasts with considerable effort and are particularly popular on YouTube – a medium on which you, given your popularity, are quite present yourself.

The process of shredding involves dubbing a new audio track onto a video, which typically features an allegedly overrated artist who is – here’s the conceit of the genre – finally exposed. The video is then fitted with synchronized rubbish in the name of comedy. The classic shred’s comic effect is gained specifically from the discrepancy between the ‘shredded’ musician’s reputation and the dub since the viewer is obviously aware of the musician’s actual ability to play excellently. That is the reason there are no shreds of musicians that are not sufficiently famous: the iconoclastic context of the performance is what makes it funny in the first place. In that sense, a shred is in many ways more an homage to the artist than it is a spoof or taking a piss out of the artist. The very existence of a shred acknowledges that the parodied musician is a famous for his or her skill.

Shreds are really a subgenre of anarchic folk art, the kind of which has been around since the dawn of man. Caricatures of ancient pharaohs can be found on shards of clay; ditto comic renderings of Roman emperors etc. The ideas of graffiti or a humorous doodle on a wall go back to time immemorial. In some instances, the ancient personalities are even solely known because they had been the subject of such commentary in popular culture.

Modern shreds are usually made of pop artists, but the greatest and most famous classical musicians – i.e. Itzhak Perlman, Pierre Boulez, and Glenn Gould (but never beginners or unknown musicians) have been thus satirized/honored. Quite an illustrious crowd, actually, which makes it sad that there hadn’t yet been a shred of you, Mr. Hope, since you are easily excellent and famous enough to be the subject of one.

It was this oversight that Arno Lücker and his co-author Carlotta Joachim had now set out to remedy and voilà: a short shred of an appearance of you and Ludovico Einaudi was created, where the two of you received a new soundtrack. Also part of the shred were your introductory remarks, which also harked back on the above-described elements of anarchic folk art… the kind of which can be found in a variety of public places and about which – if we are going to be honest – we have all had a laugh or two. Surely even you, at least in your youth or puberty which, given your youthful and dynamic nature, cannot be all that long ago!

This new audio track to your lovely speech was, as is the custom with such threads (the numerous newly, comically synchronized Harry Potter films may serve as an example; a very popular genre on Youtube), done in the a deliberately and grossly exaggerated manner which made it immediately and abundantly obvious that it was not actually you, who prattled on about genitalia size. The shred was furthermore clearly marked as such, its authors were named, and there cannot have been a single viewer who would have gotten the idea that it might actually have been you or Einaudi who were on the new soundtrack. Furthermore, the acoustic of the new track also differed very notably from the original brilliant and musically most delightful interpretation of yours – and Mr. Einaudi’s fascinating composition.

I don’t wish to talk about the actual quality of these two authors’ shred, since that such a judgment would invariably be very subjective and open to reasonable discussion. That it is why it was important to me to meticulously present you with the intent behind such an effort, which is surely to create laughter but – as usually the case with parodies – also carries strong elements of an homage within it. In this case an homage to you (and Einaudi).

The most impressive personalities tend to distinguish themselves by their ability to deal with satire and parody in an unruffled manner, equanimously, even philosophically. Therein they show true greatness. How many times, for example, has former President Obama been the subject of parody – and how often has he dealt with it with charm, grace and wit? Wasn’t Halle Berry widely admired when she actually showed up at the Golden Raspberry Awards to coolly collect her trophy for “Worst Actress”? Each time an actor or politician or other person in the public eye showed such poise in the face of caricature, their popular stock rose considerably. After all, playful handling of persiflage, or mature dealing with ridicule, is an essential part of human communication.

And even though the actors of the Harry Potter films have been made to say some pretty filthy stuff in the many, multilingual overdubbed versions, none of them have yet had the idea to sue the creators of these (often very funny) parodies or to stop their publication and stifle their dissemination. Nor have any of these actors’ careers or their image suffered as the result of such comedic versions. Quite the opposite… one could argue that such parodies have helped spread and cement the topic Harry Potter and the films in the popular public memory.

I, for one, as a great admirer of your art, would have been delighted to see you show equal equanimity in your dealing with the “Hope/Einaudi” shred. After all, humor and a certain spryness are an important part of your public persona. I would have equally loved it for yet more people to get to know your name and to admire your charming and witty reaction to such a parody – because that would have so fit your super-duper image of a music-communicator: To be just a bit unconventional and hipper than so many others! I have a book of yours at home, for example, with your delightful and very droll musician’s anecdotes, which has made me laugh and chuckle many a time. And humor is very important, isn’t it, since the cliché of classical music is rather one of thin-lipped humorlessness. Stern-looking busts peer down at us from uprights or auditoriums; drill is the first order… and the first hint of coughing and crinkling in a concert house must be suppressed at all cost. It can only be helpful for the occasional bit of laughter to break through this phalanx of seriousness. And that’s why we so desperately need you, dear Daniel Hope!

Yet in this case you didn’t think it was a laughing matter that fun was being had at, presumably, your expense. Instead, you reacted rather aggressively: within a few hours after we put the video online Arno Lücker received a letter from your lawyer with an order to cease and desist and threatening a substantial fine. He also received angry messages from his employer, the Berlin Konzerthaus, an establishment in this grand and lovely town with which you are – as a musician of world-wide fame – closely connected in many ways.

Here might be a good moment to point out that Arno Lücker immediately followed your express wish and removed the offending video at once. Despite the popularity of our blog, there might only have been a few dozen people who ever saw it, since it was made public for only a very brief time this past Christmas season. Sad, in a way, because it is, as mentioned earlier, really a pity that there are no shreds of yours online yet.

Still, you mustn’t have deemed Arno Lücker’s concession sufficient – nor his offer to apologize to you in person. Instead, he was informed by the Berlin Konzerthaus on January 12th, that his services at the Konzerthaus were no longer needed. That this dismissal happened on your initiative and insisting is fairly clear, because just a short while earlier an amicable settlement of the dispute seemed imminent during conversations with Arno Lücker’s employer – since they, too, must have realized fairly quickly that the shred-video in question lacked any malicious intent. But then again you are, of course, a world-famous and much-respected star – and thus you were able to garnish your anger by ruining the future employment of a young concert-dramaturge who had hitherto curated a popular series of concerts at the Berlin Konzerthaus.

But this still isn’t the end of the story – which is where I come into play. Although I did not have anything to do with the video myself, it has appeared on a blog that I co-founded – which is in turn part of the Neue Musikzeitung (NMZ, New Journal for Music), a magazine which is very dear to me. Part of my blog’s concept is the liberty its authors enjoy. This means that these authors don’t have to run their postings by me for approval since that would run counter to the spontaneous form of a blog. A blog does not intend to publish impeccably refined and endlessly edited articles; part of its appeal is the quickly responding format and its ability to deal swiftly with current events. Even parodies – even ribaldries or a bit of a ribbing – are part of our output, since it is my sincere belief that the health of the musical scene can be measured to a large degree in how well it can take a joke; how well it deals with being poked fun at.

But you seem unable, despite immediate and several attempts at conciliation, to take a joke. I have learned that on your express wish Arno Lücker is to cease any activity on this blog; that his articles are to be censored in the future… that he is to be rebuked and disciplined even here.

With all due respect and for all my admiration for you, dear Daniel Hope, I’m wondering if that might really be the appropriate response to this situation. We Germans are not generally known for our subtle humor (which is one reason we are so happy to have you contribute to the cultural scene here!), but we do have a good number of neat proverbs. One of them goes like this: “Mit Kanonen auf Spatzen schießen” – literally: “To fire on sparrows with cannons.” In English there’s a phrase of Alexander Pope’s that comes close: “Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel?” Arno Lücker has apologized and ceased and desisted – he cannot do any more than that. But now he is to be squashed; he would no longer be able to publish his writings (if it were up to you) and may be prohibited to work in any place where you perform or have sufficient influence? Is that the proper response? Does the reaction befit the – perceived – transgression?

I wonder if you are aware that this particular methodology, in this country with its problematic past, rings certain bells that recall times in which freedom of speech and the freedom of the press were relentlessly prosecuted; in which satire and humor were subject to severe regulation and restriction. I have to say that I’m very glad that our basic law has since come to include a right to free speech… which also covers satire. I am very glad to live in a country where one is at liberty to make caricatures of chancellor Merkel without being arrested for them, or losing one’s job, or worse. And I am an admirer of the way our chancellor deals with these taunts and ridicules – knowing that it is usually best not to react at all, not even to improprieties, obsceneness, or exaggerations.

In other words, dear Mr. Hope, I would like to ask you if you might not to deliberate, to see if you might not be able to overcome the initial and understandable offense that you have taken, and then possibly reconsider as to whether you might not give the two authors of that video a chance for a personal encounter (along with the ensuant apology)? Must lawyers be employed for something that could really be dealt much better with over a beer and a cordial conversation?

Especially because I so value and admire you, I am worried that the ruthlessness with which you have proceeded in this case might not fit your all-around positive image. Especially where the examples of Obama and Halle Berry show rather clearly that it is those who have the best (and smartest) laugh, who are laughing along?

Rise above this, if you might, and take the whole thing not with an angry glare but a wink. I – and many fans of yours, I am sure – would be overjoyed,

Cordially yours,

Moritz Eggert

P.P.P.S. Was the shred made from this fascinating video?

[1] Something I learned only from the article – but lo and behold, there, following the link, was Mr. Hope’s comment, accusing me of being all-round mean to him only to then suggest, grandly, that that was all perfectly alright… he had only come to don his white knight’s armor and defend, by way of insult, the allegedly besmirched honor of previous violin-greats Itzhak Perlman and Pinchas Zukerman.

[2] On Moritz Eggert’s blog the Intendant of the Berliner Konzerthaus Sebastian Nordmann had a statement published in the comments: „The impression has arisen that we have fired Arno Lücker from the KonzerthausThat is not the case. Arno Lücker moderates a concert series “2 x hören” five times a year as a free-lancer. I have merely decided that he will not return as a moderator next season. What concerned me was not the “shred” as such, but the dubbed text in the preceding speech which was laced with sexual phrases which I found to be insulting and lacking respect. This type of “humor” is not compatible with the duties of a moderator who also works at the Konzerthaus.”

[3] “Aber zu den wirklich bewegenden und nachwirkenden Momenten des zeitversetzt und leicht gekürzt im ZDF übertragenen Abends gehörte weder der kurze Auftritt des attraktiven Münchners [Jonas Kaufmann] noch jener des geschickten Musikvermittlers, aber mittelprächtigen Geigers Daniel Hope, der in der etwas schummrigen Kategorie ‘Klassik ohne Grenzen’ mal wieder einen Echo mit nach Hause schleppte und den ersten Satz aus dem Winter von Vivaldis ‘Vier Jahreszeiten’ vortrug.”

[This Article has been edited on January 19th, 20th and 21st to reflect details reported in Van Magazine's article "Who's Afraid of Daniel Hope". It has been further edited to reflect the statement from Deutsche Grammophon about Clemens Trautmann's non-involvement in this affair.]

Follow me on TwitterCheck out my website