Tenor Lawrence Brownlee's Moscow cancellation is good risk management

OperaWire was on this story from the start. Follow them across social and visit OperaWire.com

OI thoughts on soft power, historical context, Ukraine, and reputation management.

- Originally published via Opera Innovation on Substack (31AUG2025) -

(Santa Fe, NM) - Getting right to it, I’m incredibly relieved that lauded American tenor Lawrence Brownlee cancelled his concert at Moscow’s state-run Zaryadye Hall.

From Operawire’s 18AUG breaking story, I pondered Brownlee’s statement: “…as an artist, I believe that my art is the most powerful way for me to create positive change in the world. My decision to sing in Russia is not in any way an endorsement of the policies of their current government, just as my decision to continue to sing in the U.S. is not an endorsement of our current government. For me, the greatest power of music is that it can lift us above the divisive rhetoric of present-day politics, and remind us of what truly unifies us in our shared human experience. I am not a pawn, and will never become one – everywhere I go, I go as an artist, with the goal of bringing people together and spreading joy and peace through music.”

In spite of declaring he wasn’t a pawn, I found Brownlee’s statement surprisingly naive. However, issuing the hottest of heated takes across OI channels didn’t seem constructive; a short Operawire story didn’t paint a full picture. I sat with this information for a week, working on how I might respond (so glad I did that).

From Operawire (28AUG2025): “The tenor issued a statement regarding the cancelation, noting, ‘To all my fans, friends, and supporters: I have chosen to withdraw from the upcoming performance at Zaryadye Hall in Russia. Thank you to those of you who have voiced your thoughts on the situation – I have taken time to listen to your reactions, and I hear you.’”

Clearly, many were troubled by Mr. Brownlee’s Moscow concert. I appreciate how he graciously acknowledged reactions to his original decision to perform there, which seems to have persuaded him to change his mind.

Some thoughts:

• My fear was that Brownlee wouldn’t realize he’d always be a pawn - the focal point of a cultural soft power move either orchestrated or blessed by that government. The fact that the entire Moscow event disintegrated after Brownlee withdrew speaks volumes, whether we want to acknowledge that or not. I also have some background to pull from. In 1975, my father was an American Conservatory Theater stagehand and sound technician. That year, he participated in a cultural exchange program between the US and then-Soviet Union, organized by the U.S. State Department. My dad, with 43 members of the company, went to the Soviet Union for four weeks, mounting Laird Williamson's production of Thornton Wilder's The Matchmaker and Eugene O'Neill's Desire under the Elms, directed by Allen Fletcher. Performing at the Moscow Art Theatre, as well as in Leningrad and in Riga, Latvia, this was a highly choreographed cultural exchange, meticulously managed by the US government during an era of détente (1969-1979). Alternatively, Trump’s recent meeting with Putin in Alaska says everything we need to know about the current state of the United States’ relationship with Russia. Putin clearly used Trump to obtain the global optics he wanted, without agreeing to anything related to the war he launched against Ukraine, the purported, original reason for the meeting. Currently, our government is acting like a vassal state to Russia, a kind of détente that feels more like an alliance between mob families than actual diplomacy. For everyday Americans, we’re likely closer to the cold war of my 1980’s childhood than actual détente or collaboration.

Share

• Ukraine matters. Deeply, even if our government seems to be allowing Russia to dictate the terms of an exit from its unjust invasion and war against Ukraine, killing anywhere from 150-200K Ukrainians (military and civilian) since early 2022. I’m usually not a cheerleader for The Metropolitan Opera’s Peter Gelb, but his statement from the latest Operawire update spoke volumes: “You can’t have cultural exchange with a country that is trying to kill millions of people. Today, it would be a big mistake to even try to divorce art from politics. Art has to be used as a weapon for good. Certainly, Russia and Putin have used cultural propaganda for years. In today’s world, where Russia is trying to annihilate Ukraine and deny its very cultural existence, it is more important than ever that art be weaponised against these forces. When you think about it, this is much bigger than just the war in Ukraine. It’s really a fight for the free world, for the democratic world, and it has to be won. And cultural leaders and cultural institutions have to be part of that fight, in my opinion.” Mr. Gelb’s statement makes it clear that there are moral choices to be made in today’s business of opera. The US and Russian governments are behaving in less than savory ways, and no sound guidance will come from the current administration or a State Department run by Marco Rubio. Regarding the question of performing in a hostile state, the moral clarity around that is clearly up to individuals. To echo Mr. Gelb, values and geopolitics are intersecting with the arts in this increasingly dark era of established and rising authoritarian states, including the USA. In my opinion, the quiet comfort, compartmentalization, and neutrality some found in the silo they built around opera no longer exists.

• The opera and classical music world is generally considered niche when compared to other performing arts, like musical theatre. Even more so in terms of business sector. Based on opera’s somewhat antiquated models of doing business, as well as funding structures and practices that remain heavily reliant on development and giving from wealthy donors, building a singing career in opera is like doing so in a country club (an illustration I’ve used over the years). And with that “club” environment, singers’ stories, successes, and failures become a permanent part of their history, with direct impact on career path and future success. Given this, I wondered if a performance in Russia might become a widely understood footnote in Mr. Brownlee’s career, and not a good one, for the reasons listed above. It’s impossible to know if performing in Moscow at this time would’ve hurt Mr. Brownlee’s brand and future prospects. However, there would always have been a level of risk attached to this performance; my feeling was that the level of risk was too high and perhaps needed to be avoided altogether. Of course, working people take career risks and are often successful when they take a chance. But if they don’t succeed, perhaps losing a job or missing out on an opportunity, they can usually regroup and get back on track. But given my understanding of and experience with the opera world, failure in some regard (public or private) can often diminish opportunities or cut careers short. In other words, the extraordinary risk management that opera singers must master, often with their management teams, in order to work and thrive in an eternal buyers market is always a factor, even for established artists who are doing well. In the business of opera, unforced errors are unforced errors and do-overs are pretty much non-existent. Relating back to Mr. Brownlee’s brand, this is pure reputation management. And in opera, reputation is everything. - JBM for OI

  Follow Opera Innovation on Substack - it’s FREE. Substack-only pieces arrive soon, so please subscribe to receive!