Sampiro, it just reeks of discourtesy and rudeness. It’s not about comfort and shelter for the hypocrites, it’s about what’s appropriate for the venue. The venue was a Christmas concert at the Vatican. I’m assuming that the Church hierarchy weren’t the only ones there, as it was being filmed for Italian television.
If, in a later audience with the Pope, Ms. Hill felt the need to make a comment on the coverups, then fine. But she hijacked a completely unrelated event, cost a film crew an undetermined waste of time and money (besides the time she wasted on her rant and the inappropriate song, they have to edit her “performance” out for the telecast), and, I’m sorry for being old-fashioned, was rude to the people hosting her. She was invited to sing for a Christmas concert. She was not invited to present her opinion on the state of the Church. She was not invited to present her ideas about the coverup of the child sexual abuse scandal. She was not invited to give a public denunciation of her hosts.
Call me fussy and old-fashioned, but it was the classic definition of “RUDE”.
If, however, she throws a public tantrum or starts crying censorship just because her stunt doesn’t get met with blind adulation, then that will be tacky.
So what’s Lauryn Hill’s crimes? Dressing in a way that makes the hard right gnash its teeth and having children with her de facto partner? What is this, the 1950s? Who wrote the screed? Family.org?
I find her constant proselytising worse than her awful, awful lifestyle. But still, that’s just annoying. I applaud for her making a stand. Sometimes you can’t avoid stepping on peoples toes if you want to get your message out.
I don’t disagree with the message. She’s right. The Church was hypocritical and deliberately blind in this situation.
However, if someone that you have a moral problem with invites you to a Christmas party in their home, you have two choices. You can either decline because you don’t think you can, in good conscience, attend, or you can go and shut the hell up about the moral problem you have. To accept the invitation solely so you can slide in under the radar and deliver a public drubbing and unfavorable musical selection is in unbelievably bad taste.
And people keep saying “They’re big boys, they can take it.” Is there any indication that the only folks there were Church hierarchy? No children? No parents? No nice inoffensive Vatican cleaning ladies and gardeners having a nice afternoon off to listen to Christmas music? She took a completely unrelated event and hijacked it for her own purposes. Rude, rude, rude, rude.
There’s a difference between a function in someone’s private home and a highly-publicised event involving an international organisation. If I don’t like Joe’s womanising, and I go to Joe’s Christmas party so I can tell all of Joe’s guests that he’s a an asshole, sure, I’m being rude. But the church’s actions have wide-reaching consequences, and this event would be reported in the media (unlike Joe’s Christmas party). The message (in her view, and perhaps in both of ours) was important to get out, and the medium chosen ensured that it would get out.
Her message is not new. It’s not in any danger of being suppressed. Anyone who isn’t already aware of the damage done by shuffling pedophile priests around hasn’t been anywhere near a news outlet of some kind in the past three years. All this was was a way for her to grab some publicity for herself and to grind the Pope’s metaphorical nose in it.
This is not some huge secret that nobody knew about except Ms. Hill. She’s no herald of truth. The pedophile priest scandal is old news. She’s no Scarlet Pimpernel rescuing the children of the world from the nasty old Church. She’s the attention whore who has to have a big public argument with her boyfriend at every office Christmas party, children’s birthday party, and intimate restaurant.
Okay, gex gex, think of this hypothetical. Let’s say that at Hillary Clinton’s inauguration in 2008 (:D), Barbra Streisand is invited to perform a piece she especially wrote for the occasion. On taking the stage, she presents a 15-minute diatribe in which she states that she hates Hillary’s guts for not standing up to Bill’s extramarital shenanigans and then performs a parody of “Stand By Your Man” with Hillary’s name prominently featured.
Mixed feelings. Right message, iffy venue under these specific circumstances – not so much wrong as maybe-not-worth-it. Because what could have seemed a foolproof tactic to get her point put forward, results in the public discussing it, sure, but talking about her conduct, and her character, rather than about the issue.
OTOH, if she is aware that her star is currently eclipsed, a “what have I got to lose” approach may be understandable – though probably misguided because as it is probably very few care what it is she has to say. At least she was explicit about what the heck it was she was protesting – Sinead’s picture-ripping just came out of freakin’ nowhere for too many people.
Michael Moore is a different case, heckling the Bush administration virtually IS what he does for a living, and anyone with any sense could have expected his acceptance speech to include some of it.
The Vatican officials richly deserve any mortification and embarrassment we can throw their way over the corruption in their ranks; but from what I have learned about them over time, the lasting impact of this one will probably be to screen future shows so they make sure to invite only reliably docile performers.
All I know is that her unplugged concert was one of the worst I’ve ever seen.
She played almost the entire show solo even though there was a full band (including a badly-needed drummer) waiting in the wings at her beck and call. Every song sounded the same and she has really no sense of rythm (even though I know it must be very hard to play a guitar and sing at the same time). Nevertheless, it was very hard to get into, and I almost fell asleep. At one point, after she finished a song, my obnoxious friend said, loud enough for most people sitting in the ten rows in front and back of us, “Man, could I use a coffee” He got some dirty looks, but for the most part, people chuckled obviously sharing the same sentiment.
I went to see the concert as a favor to a friend. I ended up dishing out $50 bucks for my tick (the actual ticket price was a $100!)
I’m glad you started this thread, Sampiro. I had contemplated starting one but didn’t follow through.
Unfortunately, I think Lauryn Hill has gone off the deep end. I liked her with the Fugees and I loved The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill. I was excited to get MTV Unplugged 2.0 until I tried to listen to it. It was unlistenable (IMO) - not only was her voice out of shape but she rambled a lot about religious things, about people thinking she was crazy (gee, I wonder why) and the songs were a big departure from her usual style. I was saddened by her apparent loss of a grip on reality. I only like one song on that double CD, it truly is a shame - she is so much more talented than that.
When I read about the Vatican stunt I wasn’t surprised. If she felt that strongly about the situation she shouldn’t have accepted the invitation. She could draw attention to this issue on her own merit. I think she is becoming a sad shadow of who she used to be.
i didnt see her speech but i just want to clarify that the catholic church isn’t just hated for churning out pedophiles (though thats the reason nowadays) the history of the institution is full of corruption, their ideologies are bastardized versions of christ’s, and the jesuits control the world.
much love for lauryn hill, we need more people speaking out on this shit and she couldnt have picked a better spot in terms of influence. its funny to think people are more concerned with the trivial shit like…whether or not she was rude to this institution that has been ruining peoples lives for centuries…
but you see, wait tom, the problem i sshe has distracted from the message by making her “protest” in such a way that it only calls attention to her character, and not to the institution.
I get what you mean, but I think it’s a matter of context. A presidential inauguration is different to a Christmas concert or an Oscar speech. They’ll have one next year, Ms Hill will be forgotten. But, yeah I get your point, and it does come close to rude. But sometimes rude is OK. Social graces sometimes have to give way to more important concerns.
(And in your situation, I’d feel that Ms. Streisand should keep her nose out of other people’s private affairs - the church problems, however, are not private affairs.)