5 ms·

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzxTDHMQza8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzxTDHMQza8 To stand in the full blast of a crowd that hates you with that amount o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzxTDHMQza8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzxTDHMQza8 To stand in the full blast of a crowd that hates you with that amount of poise, and have a voice that is still capable of song or even coherent speech, just beggars my imagination. i hope you have found peace. you were a voice crying out in the wilderness and we did to you what we always do to that.

basisword 3y ago
Wow! The thing that surprised me most about this was it’s a Bob Dylan tribute concert? I’m shocked religion still had such a hold on the kind of people attending that type of concert at that point in time. The volume is insane. Incredible strength to be able to stand and take such abuse and continue to perform.
- cmrdporcupine 3y ago
  I think it speaks less to people's religious feelings and more towards the rather apolitical and apathetic alternative music culture at the time. If I recall the atmosphere at the time it was less "how dare she say that about the Pope?!" and more "how dare she co-opt the public stage for controversial/'political' speech?!" I also don't recall the outrage at her SNL performance even being particularly or especially by Catholics in particular, though I'm sure it was stronger among them. The rage around her Pope-photo-tearing photo on SNL I think was about: we're trying to sell/watching a entertainment products here, and now you've just gone and made things intense. They just wanted the dancing bear. She was an intense personality, an artist, not an entertainer. Maybe getting a billboard #1 single and becoming a sensation was the worst thing that could have happened for her. People just wanted to be entertained -- they wanted the fantastic voice but without the powerful emotions and convictions behind it -- and she didn't want to be a 'product' I agree it's especially jarring in the context of a Bob Dylan tribute.
  - jgwil2 3y ago
    > Maybe getting a billboard #1 single and becoming a sensation was the worst thing that could have happened for her. She said as much herself in her recent memoir: “I feel that having a No. 1 record derailed my career, and my tearing the photo put me back on the right track.”
  - lamontcg 3y ago
    > "how dare she co-opt the public stage for controversial/'political' speech?!" i don't know if the religious or the apolitical/centrists are worse.
    - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
      It's also important to remember how different that era of broadcast TV is from today though. It was far more centralized. Pre-streaming services, obviously, but also less penetration of cable and satellite TV, and so when something made it onto live broadcast television, there was a large audience, and they didn't have as many choices about what to watch, instead. So to get yourself onto live television in a popular spot, and do what she did was ballsy, and obviously clearly intended to make impact... but you can also see how people who tuned in expecting one thing and got something else could get angry. Which was of course her intent.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        They were directing their anger at the wrong person.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    I hope none of that audience ever goes to see Anne Clark then.
  - listenallyall 3y ago
    > we're trying to sell/watching a entertainment products here, and now you've just gone and made things intense I know the enlightened viewpoint is that tearing up the pope's photo was brave and progressive, that Sinead was ahead of her time in recognizing the faults of the Catholic church -- but yes, exactly, she absolutely failed to "read the room." SNL in the early 90s was one of the best eras, but it was also one of its silliest. Hans and Franz, Wayne's World, Farley, Sandler, Spade. There was absolutely no way, at that time, any kind of serious mid-show protest would gain positive attention. She screwed up, no way around it.
    - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
      Why do you think she wanted positive attention? Believe it or not, not everybody is selling themselves all the time.
      - listenallyall 3y ago
        I don't claim she wanted positive attention to her music, to sell more records or anything. Likely the opposite, who knows. But when people protest, they do so to bring attention to some cause, that's the point of the protest. As she tore the photo, Sinead said into the mic on live television "fight the real enemy," referring to the church. But it totally backfired, instead of taking her claims seriously, the majority of Catholics rallied behind the church and the very popular pope, and any investigation into the darkside of the church was likely delayed for a decade or more.
        beedeebeedee 3y ago
        > But it totally backfired ... and any investigation into the darkside of the church was likely delayed for a decade or more. That is completely debunked by the facts and a very bonkers statement. It provided survivors with a sympathetic voice that helped many of them come forward, especially in Ireland. Please get your facts in order before making such an egregious statement.
- nailer 3y ago
  The audience are terrible, but as a child I would have taken part in that. We identified as a group, with a set of beliefs our parents had chosen for us, and thought anyone that attacked our leader was attacking us. Years later I grew up and apologised to Sinead O Connor on Twitter for thinking this way. But a lot of people never did grow up, not just Catholics but also people from other conservative religions. People still feel religious ideas are somehow innate, and therefore the criticising religious ideas is wrong. But no idea is innate, people can and do leave and join every religion and every set of spiritual beliefs all the time, so no idea is beyond criticism. A crowd of people booing Sinead O Connor 30 years ago is very similar to people attacking Charlie Hebdo in 2015 and sadly people still make excuses for both.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > A crowd of people booing Sinead O Connor 30 years ago is very similar to people attacking Charlie Hebdo in 2015 Erm. I don't think it's that similar.
    - nailer 3y ago
      ok
      - schoen 3y ago
        Similarities: In both cases, people are offended that their religious sensibilities were hurt, and many of them want to lash out angrily against those who offended them. Some of them say that no one should have the right to offend them this way. Some of them try to find a way to retaliate against those who offended them. Differences: In one case, a dozen people are murdered; in the other case, not.
        bryanrasmussen 3y ago
        right, considering people were murdered we could say that the second case was a worse example of retaliation for feeling offended. They were similar in type but different in outcome.
- kokanator 3y ago
  First a bow to her tremendous courage. The irony of this moment was the song she was about to perform was "I Believe in You". This would have been the most religious song sung that evening by far. It was brilliant on her part to separate the failed human organization from her beliefs. This is what happens when you simply shout someone down. You miss the opportunity to better understand them. Here is the rehearsal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C7tAp5X6Zo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C7tAp5X6Zo
  - lucideer 3y ago
    > The irony of this moment The thing about Sinéad is that she was, right until the end, a strong believer in one god and if anything more of a critic of the church due to their betrayal of religious/spiritual/moral principles as hierarchical institutions, rather than their promotion of theistic beliefs. She always considered herself a theologian, she said at the time of the pope: "Why do we need a pope? Christ doesn't need a representative". She also later said of converting/"reverting" to Islam: "The reason why I like Islam is, I can keep Christianity and Judaism, which are two religions which I loved and studied.." While her speaking out against the church would have resonated with many atheists and agnostics at the time, and even more with today's less religiously dominated Western society - it certainly resonates with me for this reason - I think her own perspective was a little different.
andyjohnson0 3y ago
Thank you for posting that. Her grace and defiance there were extraordinary. Peace for her.
dredmorbius 3y ago
Rolling Stone's look back, from 2021: "Flashback: Sinead O’Connor Gets Booed Offstage at Bob Dylan Anniversary Concert" <https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/sinead-o-connor-booed-pope-bob-dylan-concert-1176338/ https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/sinead-o-conno...>
arnvald 3y ago
I've never seen this before. What an incredibly powerful act, this might have taken so much courage. Thank you for sharing!

basisword 3y ago

Wow! The thing that surprised me most about this was it’s a Bob Dylan tribute concert? I’m shocked religion still had such a hold on the kind of people attending that type of concert at that point in time. The volume is insane. Incredible strength to be able to stand and take such abuse and continue to perform.

cmrdporcupine 3y ago
I think it speaks less to people's religious feelings and more towards the rather apolitical and apathetic alternative music culture at the time. If I recall the atmosphere at the time it was less "how dare she say that about the Pope?!" and more "how dare she co-opt the public stage for controversial/'political' speech?!" I also don't recall the outrage at her SNL performance even being particularly or especially by Catholics in particular, though I'm sure it was stronger among them. The rage around her Pope-photo-tearing photo on SNL I think was about: we're trying to sell/watching a entertainment products here, and now you've just gone and made things intense. They just wanted the dancing bear. She was an intense personality, an artist, not an entertainer. Maybe getting a billboard #1 single and becoming a sensation was the worst thing that could have happened for her. People just wanted to be entertained -- they wanted the fantastic voice but without the powerful emotions and convictions behind it -- and she didn't want to be a 'product' I agree it's especially jarring in the context of a Bob Dylan tribute.
- jgwil2 3y ago
  > Maybe getting a billboard #1 single and becoming a sensation was the worst thing that could have happened for her. She said as much herself in her recent memoir: “I feel that having a No. 1 record derailed my career, and my tearing the photo put me back on the right track.”
- lamontcg 3y ago
  > "how dare she co-opt the public stage for controversial/'political' speech?!" i don't know if the religious or the apolitical/centrists are worse.
  - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
    It's also important to remember how different that era of broadcast TV is from today though. It was far more centralized. Pre-streaming services, obviously, but also less penetration of cable and satellite TV, and so when something made it onto live broadcast television, there was a large audience, and they didn't have as many choices about what to watch, instead. So to get yourself onto live television in a popular spot, and do what she did was ballsy, and obviously clearly intended to make impact... but you can also see how people who tuned in expecting one thing and got something else could get angry. Which was of course her intent.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      They were directing their anger at the wrong person.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  I hope none of that audience ever goes to see Anne Clark then.
- listenallyall 3y ago
  > we're trying to sell/watching a entertainment products here, and now you've just gone and made things intense I know the enlightened viewpoint is that tearing up the pope's photo was brave and progressive, that Sinead was ahead of her time in recognizing the faults of the Catholic church -- but yes, exactly, she absolutely failed to "read the room." SNL in the early 90s was one of the best eras, but it was also one of its silliest. Hans and Franz, Wayne's World, Farley, Sandler, Spade. There was absolutely no way, at that time, any kind of serious mid-show protest would gain positive attention. She screwed up, no way around it.
  - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
    Why do you think she wanted positive attention? Believe it or not, not everybody is selling themselves all the time.
    - listenallyall 3y ago
      I don't claim she wanted positive attention to her music, to sell more records or anything. Likely the opposite, who knows. But when people protest, they do so to bring attention to some cause, that's the point of the protest. As she tore the photo, Sinead said into the mic on live television "fight the real enemy," referring to the church. But it totally backfired, instead of taking her claims seriously, the majority of Catholics rallied behind the church and the very popular pope, and any investigation into the darkside of the church was likely delayed for a decade or more.
      - beedeebeedee 3y ago
        > But it totally backfired ... and any investigation into the darkside of the church was likely delayed for a decade or more. That is completely debunked by the facts and a very bonkers statement. It provided survivors with a sympathetic voice that helped many of them come forward, especially in Ireland. Please get your facts in order before making such an egregious statement.
nailer 3y ago
The audience are terrible, but as a child I would have taken part in that. We identified as a group, with a set of beliefs our parents had chosen for us, and thought anyone that attacked our leader was attacking us. Years later I grew up and apologised to Sinead O Connor on Twitter for thinking this way. But a lot of people never did grow up, not just Catholics but also people from other conservative religions. People still feel religious ideas are somehow innate, and therefore the criticising religious ideas is wrong. But no idea is innate, people can and do leave and join every religion and every set of spiritual beliefs all the time, so no idea is beyond criticism. A crowd of people booing Sinead O Connor 30 years ago is very similar to people attacking Charlie Hebdo in 2015 and sadly people still make excuses for both.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > A crowd of people booing Sinead O Connor 30 years ago is very similar to people attacking Charlie Hebdo in 2015 Erm. I don't think it's that similar.
  - nailer 3y ago
    ok
    - schoen 3y ago
      Similarities: In both cases, people are offended that their religious sensibilities were hurt, and many of them want to lash out angrily against those who offended them. Some of them say that no one should have the right to offend them this way. Some of them try to find a way to retaliate against those who offended them. Differences: In one case, a dozen people are murdered; in the other case, not.
      - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
        right, considering people were murdered we could say that the second case was a worse example of retaliation for feeling offended. They were similar in type but different in outcome.
kokanator 3y ago
First a bow to her tremendous courage. The irony of this moment was the song she was about to perform was "I Believe in You". This would have been the most religious song sung that evening by far. It was brilliant on her part to separate the failed human organization from her beliefs. This is what happens when you simply shout someone down. You miss the opportunity to better understand them. Here is the rehearsal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C7tAp5X6Zo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C7tAp5X6Zo
- lucideer 3y ago
  > The irony of this moment The thing about Sinéad is that she was, right until the end, a strong believer in one god and if anything more of a critic of the church due to their betrayal of religious/spiritual/moral principles as hierarchical institutions, rather than their promotion of theistic beliefs. She always considered herself a theologian, she said at the time of the pope: "Why do we need a pope? Christ doesn't need a representative". She also later said of converting/"reverting" to Islam: "The reason why I like Islam is, I can keep Christianity and Judaism, which are two religions which I loved and studied.." While her speaking out against the church would have resonated with many atheists and agnostics at the time, and even more with today's less religiously dominated Western society - it certainly resonates with me for this reason - I think her own perspective was a little different.

andyjohnson0 3y ago

Thank you for posting that. Her grace and defiance there were extraordinary. Peace for her.

dredmorbius 3y ago

Rolling Stone's look back, from 2021: "Flashback: Sinead O’Connor Gets Booed Offstage at Bob Dylan Anniversary Concert" <https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/sinead-o-connor-booed-pope-bob-dylan-concert-1176338/ https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/sinead-o-conno...>

arnvald 3y ago

I've never seen this before. What an incredibly powerful act, this might have taken so much courage. Thank you for sharing!