Well, Jayson Gillham has apparently decided to not only play the piano but also weigh in on geopolitics, and why not? Clearly, the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra thought differently, and here we are with a federal court case about discrimination—quite the concerto. It's interesting, isn't it, how someone famous for ivory-tickling has ended up embroiled in such legal dramas over a few comments. Who needs an apology when the courts can do the talking? For a profession often relegated to the background at cocktail parties, classical musicians don't half find themselves in the news when they accidentally say something politically charged. Is it akin to reading the room wrong, or perhaps using the wrong minor scale? What stands out is the assumption by some that a public figure should offer an apology as a matter of course. Apologies might work at family reunions, but should they really be a default in such situations? Where do we draw the line between genuine discourse and censorship masquerading as 'respectfulness'? As someone who's seen quite a few political kerfuffles in the UK and EU, one can't help but ponder whether this is a bit of a storm in a teacup or a notable precedent. Then again, perhaps it's all just musical chairs with legal ramifications. Shouldn't we be more upset when politicians fail at music rather than musicians dabbling in politics?