My unsolicited opinions on this article and the situation:
This is the second article on this subject to reference the Mahler quote about how if a composer could say what he wanted in words then he would not write music. Does that quote really apply here? First, I feel like Tarm is incapable of saying what he wants to with his own music and so he has to rely on quotations, the lowest common denominator. It's a cop-out. I really think using quotations like this shows a major lack of skill and creativity. Second, what sort of statement about "conflict, totalitarianism, and nationalism" is he making in this 9-minute piece that can't be said with words? Seriously, look at his quote from the article:
In addition to “Horst Wessel,” he also quotes Ukraine’s Soviet-era anthem. So does that mean he intends to equate the Soviet domination of Ukraine with Nazi totalitarianism?
Is it really that ambiguous as the author says? If this is what the piece is "about," then I'm sorry, but making comparisons between totalitarian regimes is something that is always easier to do with words than with music. I also think the author completely over-romanticizes the supposed power of Tarm's work and even music in general. I mean, Picasso's "Guernica" as a powerful representation and reminder of the horrors of modern warfare, sure. Some 21-year old kid's 9 minutes of music as some meaningful statement about Nazism, Putin, the Russian occupation of Ukraine, conflict, nationalism, and totalitarianism, or something ambiguous but probably related to one or more of those topics but we can't be sure because he only left us with TS Eliot quotes as program notes... Give me a break.
I also think referencing the Mahler quote as Tarm and the author did implicitly invites a comparison to Mahler, and I don't think these sorts of shallow political analogies are what Mahler had in mind. I think even Shostakovich, whom the author mentions, would agree that his politically-charged pieces come from a different artistic place than what Mahler was describing.
I don't necessarily agree with NYYC's decision, but why are so many people rushing to defend this guy? This is not censorship.
This whole situation reminds me a bit of the situation surrounding that movie The Interview. A good friend of mine had a great take on that: James Franco and Seth Rogen had the God-given right to make that movie. Freedom of speech and so on, great. But, they did not have the God-given right to profit from that movie. So if it wasn't going to be shown in theaters, fine, that's not in violation of any moral code. I sort of feel the same thing here- Tarm has every right to compose this piece, but he doesn't have the right to have it performed. The NYYC, just like Sony or any of the cinemas that pulled screenings of The Interview, have every right to not present this work once circumstances changed, just like the MET had every right to still perform Death of Klinghoffer after some ignorant people protested. It might be questionable or even cowardly of them, but this is not censorship.