GMG Classical Music Forum

The Music Room => General Classical Music Discussion => Topic started by: suzyq on April 06, 2010, 07:42:18 PM

Title: James Levine
Post by: suzyq on April 06, 2010, 07:42:18 PM
Do you think that James Levine should retire or at least trim his schedule?  Unfortunately he is having so many health problems and  this is causing many problems for the Metropolitan Opera, Boston Sympnony and the many engagements he has scheduled.

His schedule was printed in todays New York Times (4/6/10) - it's hard to see how he will
be able to keep these engagements.  I look forward to reading what your feelings are. :)





Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Bogey on April 06, 2010, 07:59:06 PM
If he is doing it at this point for enjoyment, then sure.  Also, maybe this is what is actually keeping him going and he would be in worse shape, at some level, if he stopped.  And if the employers in this case do not mind what might be a checkerboard schedule on his part, then why not.
Title: James Levine
Post by: suzyq on July 19, 2010, 04:29:23 AM
Isn't time for James Levine to retire and become a Guest Conductor? 

It dosen't seem professional to have the Met Opera, Boston Symphony and others waiting to see what happens.  We are all human and subject to health problems at times.  It may be time for James Levine to bow out gracefully and that is difficult to do.  That old saying, "leavem wanting more".

It would be great to learn more from those with much more knowledge then I have.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mirror Image on July 19, 2010, 07:37:23 AM
Why should Levine bow out? What exactly would this do for the classical community? We lost Mackerras last week, we can't afford to loose Levine right now even he would just become a guest conductor. His leadership is crucial right now to Boston. That said, Levine is an excellent conductor. I used to have little respect for any of his recordings, but then I heard his recording of Berg's Violin Concerto and was blown away. This really made me re-examine his output. There's a great newer recording he conducted of Ravel's Daphnis et Chloe that you should acquire at some point. It's beautiful through and through. Hopefully, Levine will have many more years ahead of him. I would like to pick up his new recording of Schoenberg's Gurrelieder at some point.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Superhorn on July 19, 2010, 07:46:24 AM
   It's too early to know whether he should step down from the BSO and the Met. Let's just hope that his health improves. It would be terrible loss to classical music if he had to retire because of ill health.
  Let's keep our fingers crossed and hope he will be able to conduct the Met's new production of the Ring beginning this September with Das Rheingold on opening night and the subsequent performances, as well as Die Walkure later in the season, and the other operas.
  Fortunately, the Met has gained the services of the highly gifted and versatile Italian conductor Fabio Luisi as principal guest conductor starting next season, and he will be quite active there from now on.
   There is even buzz about him succeeding Levine as music director some time in the future.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Franco on July 19, 2010, 07:53:23 AM
Quote from: suzyq on July 19, 2010, 04:29:23 AM
Isn't time for James Levine to retire and become a Guest Conductor? 


I'd answer in the negative since he hasn't, and those organizations have not, expressed any opinion about this and theirs are the only opinions that count.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: MishaK on July 19, 2010, 08:41:13 AM
According to Norman Lebrecht, the BSO may announce before the end of summer that Riccardo Chailly will succed Levine as music director.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mirror Image on July 19, 2010, 08:48:03 AM
The Boston Symphony Orchestra have never been one of my favorite orchestras. I don't even think I own that many of their recordings. I think this orchestra has made many missteps one of them was letting Ozawa in the front door. :D The Philadelphia Orchestra will hopefully recover from the Eschenbach episode, but they have Dutoit right now, but it will be interesting to hear what Nezet-Seguin will do with this orchestra. Another interesting post will be Yan Pascal Tortelier in Sao Paulo succeeding John Neschling. Hopefully, Tortelier, who is a great conductor, can sustain the kind of repetation that Neschling built for this orchestra.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: karlhenning on July 19, 2010, 08:50:43 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 19, 2010, 08:48:03 AM
The Boston Symphony Orchestra have never been one of my favorite orchestras. I don't even think I own that many of their recordings. I think this orchestra has made many missteps one of them was letting Ozawa in the front door. :D

In general, I'll agree that Ozawa stayed longer than was good for either himself or the band.  But . . . have you heard the Gurrelieder he recorded with the BSO and the Tanglewood Festival Chorus? Or the complete Prokofiev Romeo & Juliet with the BSO?
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mirror Image on July 19, 2010, 08:59:33 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 19, 2010, 08:50:43 AM

In general, I'll agree that Ozawa stayed longer than was good for either himself or the band.  But . . . have you heard the Gurrelieder he recorded with the BSO and the Tanglewood Festival Chorus? Or the complete Prokofiev Romeo & Juliet with the BSO?

Oh yes Karl. I own all of Ozawa's Prokofiev recordings and that recording of Schoenberg as well. He's a capable conductor no doubt, but I think his authority on the podium isn't as great as say a Kubelik or a Bernstein or even Levine. But this is my opinion of course.

Two of my favorite recordings with Ozawa are his Faure recording of orchestral works and his recording with Viktoria Mullova performing Sibelius' Violin Concerto.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: karlhenning on July 19, 2010, 09:09:35 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 19, 2010, 08:59:33 AM
Oh yes Karl. I own all of Ozawa's Prokofiev recordings and that recording of Schoenberg as well. He's a capable conductor no doubt, but I think his authority on the podium isn't as great as say a Kubelik or a Bernstein or even Levine. But this is my opinion of course.

If you'll pardon my nuance, I agree with your overall assessment of his relation to Kubelik, Bernstein & Levine;  still, I think very highly of just a handful of the recordings Ozawa has made.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: suzyq on July 19, 2010, 01:25:21 PM
Thanks one and all - I've enjoyed reading your posts and learning is one of the benefits.

I hope that Levine recovers as all of us do, but I have a feeling that the Met, BSO. must be
discussing his ability to resume conducting behind the scenes. 

Guess we can hope for the best :)

Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: oabmarcus on July 19, 2010, 03:26:45 PM
Quote from: Mensch on July 19, 2010, 08:41:13 AM
According to Norman Lebrecht, the BSO may announce before the end of summer that Riccardo Chailly will succed Levine as music director.

the same Chailly that couldn't conduct Le Sacre du Printemps?
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: MishaK on July 19, 2010, 03:36:18 PM
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 19, 2010, 03:26:45 PM
the same Chailly that couldn't conduct Le Sacre du Printemps?

WTF are you talking about? There is general consensus among musicians and critics alike that he is one of the finest and most underrated living conductors. He would be quite a get for the BSO.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: oabmarcus on July 19, 2010, 03:44:07 PM
Quote from: Mensch on July 19, 2010, 03:36:18 PM
WTF are you talking about? There is general consensus among musicians and critics alike that he is one of the finest and most underrated living conductors. He would be quite a get for the BSO.

there was this story in "Serving Genius" about Chailly not able to conduct the piece, don't take my word for it, go read it.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: oabmarcus on July 19, 2010, 03:45:36 PM
Quote from: Mensch on July 19, 2010, 03:36:18 PM
WTF are you talking about? There is general consensus among musicians and critics alike that he is one of the finest and most underrated living conductors. He would be quite a get for the BSO.
being great and can't conduct certain pieces aren't mutually exclusive you know. Some great conductors make their fame based on only a narrow repertoire which they are very good at.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: MishaK on July 19, 2010, 03:51:35 PM
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 19, 2010, 03:44:07 PM
"Serving Genius"

What is that?
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: oabmarcus on July 19, 2010, 05:29:02 PM
Quote from: Mensch on July 19, 2010, 03:51:35 PM
What is that?

A new biography on Carlo Maria Giulini by Thomas Saler
http://www.amazon.com/Serving-Genius-Carlo-Maria-Giulini/dp/025203502X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279589329&sr=8-1
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: jochanaan on July 20, 2010, 05:41:46 PM
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 19, 2010, 03:26:45 PM
the same Chailly that couldn't conduct Le Sacre du Printemps?
I haven't heard anything about Chailly and Le Sacre, but Chailly did just fine in the complete works of Varèse, so I'd be very surprised at anything less than an excellent Le Sacre from his baton. :)
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: oabmarcus on July 20, 2010, 06:28:29 PM
Quote from: jochanaan on July 20, 2010, 05:41:46 PM
I haven't heard anything about Chailly and Le Sacre, but Chailly did just fine in the complete works of Varèse, so I'd be very surprised at anything less than an excellent Le Sacre from his baton. :)
I was surprised when I read about that, but I think part of it was that he had to record a new piece (la sacre), a piece at the time he couldn't conduct when he was expecting to record another piece he was familiar with. Administration had to take some blame for that too.
That story was decades old anyways.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: not edward on July 20, 2010, 06:37:40 PM
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 20, 2010, 06:28:29 PM
I was surprised when I read about that, but I think part of it was that he had to record a new piece (la sacre), a piece at the time he couldn't conduct when he was expecting to record another piece he was familiar with. Administration had to take some blame for that too.
That story was decades old anyways.
Couldn't conduct, or couldn't conduct to a standard that would satisfy him?
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: MishaK on July 20, 2010, 06:58:25 PM
It's hard to judge the statement when it is not a substantiated direct quote, but it sounds like an unnecessary snipe from a biased individual. Whatever you may dislike about Chailly, lack of technique or musicianship certainly doesn't make the list of legitimate gripes.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: bhodges on July 20, 2010, 07:14:09 PM
Quote from: Mensch on July 20, 2010, 06:58:25 PM
It's hard to judge the statement when it is not a substantiated direct quote, but it sounds like an unnecessary snipe from a biased individual. Whatever you may dislike about Chailly, lack of technique or musicianship certainly doesn't make the list of legitimate gripes.

Yes, I can certainly imagine some complaints about him, but neither his technique nor his musicianship are suspect.  PS, here's his recording of Le Sacre and Four Norwegian Moods with the Cleveland Orchestra.  I have no complaints about it whatsoever.

--Bruce
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on July 20, 2010, 07:16:39 PM
I've probably heard Levine live more than any other living conductor (you could scarcely do otherwise if you attend performances at the Met on a frequent basis). But I have to say my attitude towards him is extremely ambivalent. He has done wonders in building the Met Orchestra into an ensemble that can not only play opera but compete with the Philharmonic or any other major orchestra in handling the symphonic repertory. I love his willingness to take on demanding contemporary composers like Carter and Babbitt. He was splendid a couple of years ago leading the Juilliard Symphony in a program consisting of Ives's Three Places in New England and the Carter Cello Concerto and Symphonia.

I am often frustrated and disappointed however in the way he luxuriates in the rich sounds of Romantic music to the point where there is no incisiveness of phrasing and the whole texture feels like a mass of jello. I honestly don't think I could sit through another of his soporific Ring cycles or Rosenkavaliers, and I wasn't in the least disappointed that while he was recovering from his fall a few years ago, he was replaced in Parsifal by Peter Schreier.

That said, even now he can be lively and incisive in music where you'd least expect it, like Gluck's Orfeo, and he was just fine in Fidelio and the Trittico. But he has monopolized many of the bigger operas at the Met for so long that I would like for him to step aside and give other conductors a chance.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: bhodges on July 20, 2010, 07:21:54 PM
Quote from: Sforzando on July 20, 2010, 07:16:39 PM
But he has monopolizes many of the bigger operas at the Met for so long that I would like for him to step aside and give other conductors a chance.

I've also heard Levine a great deal, with mostly excellent results.  But apropos this point above: when Levine had to bow out recently for three performances of Lulu at the end of the season, I was disappointed, since I do like the way he handles that piece.  However, when Fabio Luisi stepped in at the last minute, I have to say I may have enjoyed it even more. 

--Bruce
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: karlhenning on July 22, 2010, 10:46:37 AM
Only a tangent upon the topic, but the BSO page on facebook recently posted this status update:

QuoteThree safe programs at Tanglewood this weekend! The Abduction from the Seraglio by Mozart on Friday, an all-Brahms program on Saturday, and a Strauss extravaganza on Sunday! See you there!

Oh! My mistake: they used the term exciting, not safe ; )
Title: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: LKB on December 02, 2017, 06:56:44 PM
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/arts/music/james-levine-sexual-misconduct-met-opera.html?referer=https://news.google.com/news/

I hope this turns out to be nothing.

:-X,

LKB
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: amw on December 02, 2017, 07:37:56 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/02/six-in-ten-classical-musicians-harassed-survey-finds
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: Mahlerian on December 02, 2017, 07:44:53 PM
As mentioned in the Times article, these rumors have been around for a while.  I've been aware of them, for sure.
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: ComposerOfAvantGarde on December 02, 2017, 07:48:14 PM
I doubt it would be nothing. Even if it is nothing it certainly brings up the opportunity to discuss the larger problem in the classical music world.
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: Daverz on December 02, 2017, 08:09:33 PM
Yes, the rumors have been around for a long time.  I did not give them much credence at the time. This is the first I've heard of a victim coming forward.
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: Parsifal on December 02, 2017, 08:37:16 PM
It was represented to me by someone in the industry that it was a known fact that he had sexual relations with young boys who were associated with the Opera company. It was tolerated because he was a genius and economically essential to the company. The Met knew about it and are no less culpable than Penn State and Joe Paterno with Sandusky.
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: LKB on December 02, 2017, 10:03:59 PM
I also heard rumors as well, but put it down to jealousy, politics etc..

If it turns out that this behavior was in fact going on, and that the Met was aware and shielding Levine... Well, those involved will have their reckoning, l should hope.

Disheartened,

LKB
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: SurprisedByBeauty on December 03, 2017, 01:55:30 AM


Alas, he's in the news again.


The Grand Moral Reckoning, Classical Edition. James Levine In The Soup
(https://blogs-images.forbes.com/jenslaurson/files/2017/12/Mr-Levine-before-a-performance-of-Verdi-s-Requiem-on-Sept-18_WSJ_Modified.jpg?width=960)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenslaurson/2017/12/03/the-grand-moral-reckoning-classical-edition-james-levine-in-the-soup/#22b1e8c21d5b (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenslaurson/2017/12/03/the-grand-moral-reckoning-classical-edition-james-levine-in-the-soup/#22b1e8c21d5b)
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: The new erato on December 03, 2017, 02:25:42 AM
Several Norwegian female classcal artists have recently come forward with deeply disturbing stories of sexual harassment in the classical music industry. Let me say that my dislike of a dead, major conductor has for years been grounded in what I consider a very trusthworthy story given in an interview 10 years ago by an internationally known Norwegian singer.
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: amw on December 03, 2017, 02:44:46 AM
Every female classical musician I know (including myself), and a lot of male classical musicians I know, has at least one story of sexual harassment or abuse.... most often by teachers/mentors, conductors and music directors, and other people in positions of authority. That's just kind of how the industry has worked for decades. I hope some of the men responsible will be held accountable even if they are "great artists", or even just important directors of various institutions who have done a good job etc, but not holding my breath >.>
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: Karl Henning on December 03, 2017, 03:17:37 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on December 02, 2017, 08:37:16 PM
It was represented to me by someone in the industry that it was a known fact that he had sexual relations with young boys who were associated with the Opera company. It was tolerated because he was a genius and economically essential to the company. The Met knew about it and are no less culpable than Penn State and Joe Paterno with Sandusky.

Alas, this is my understanding, as well.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on December 03, 2017, 03:20:32 AM
It may just be timing (this being The Year, apparently, of Wrongheaded Tolerance Wearing Out at Last), but he is in the soup at a time when he ought to be retiring, anyway.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: SurprisedByBeauty on December 03, 2017, 03:26:26 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 03, 2017, 03:20:32 AM
It may just be timing (this being The Year, apparently, of Wrongheaded Tolerance Wearing Out at Last), but he is in the soup at a time when he ought to be retiring, anyway.

True. The industry-dinosaurs have the most history and the greatest discrepancy between former and current power. The next few will be similar cases; old grand seigneur singers or conductors at, near, or behind the end of their career.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Scion7 on December 03, 2017, 05:08:36 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/12/03/metropolitan-opera-conductor-james-levine-facing-sexual-misconduct-probe.html

Sad.
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: Parsifal on December 03, 2017, 06:37:13 AM
Quote from: amw on December 03, 2017, 02:44:46 AM
Every female classical musician I know (including myself), and a lot of male classical musicians I know, has at least one story of sexual harassment or abuse.... most often by teachers/mentors, conductors and music directors, and other people in positions of authority. That's just kind of how the industry has worked for decades. I hope some of the men responsible will be held accountable even if they are "great artists", or even just important directors of various institutions who have done a good job etc, but not holding my breath >.>

It has been the same in any case where there are 'star' performers who produce great revenue for their organizations. They come to be considered untouchable because of their economic value and/or status. If you report them you become the enemy of the organization. I would say the environment has been getting better over time but it is still a pervasive problem.

The moment we are in where famous people are being called on their predatory behaviour is necessary, but it must lead to a culture where people get called on their unacceptable behaviour immediately, not after a 20 year history of abusive conduct. If people are called on their initial transgression they are presumably less likely to go to the next step.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Parsifal on December 03, 2017, 07:02:25 AM
I see we have another thread on this in the diner (perhaps where it belongs). Some consolidation may be in order.

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,27657.0.html

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 03, 2017, 03:20:32 AM
It may just be timing (this being The Year, apparently, of Wrongheaded Tolerance Wearing Out at Last), but he is in the soup at a time when he ought to be retiring, anyway.

But maybe he should be retiring in a state penitentiary.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 03, 2017, 07:16:48 AM
Quote from: SurprisedByBeautyI wanted [to] ask a famous opera star this last question in an interview (which ended up not taking place at all): "For truly great artists, is there a different moral standard that applies?"

My answer is "Absolutely not! There is a universal moral standard which applies to everyone! Being a great conductor is no excuse for pederasty / paedophilia."

NB: I don't know if Levine is truly guilty (and I'd be only too glad if he were officially exonerated). I say this as a matter of principle.
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: Florestan on December 03, 2017, 07:19:32 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on December 03, 2017, 06:37:13 AM
The moment we are in where famous people are being called on their predatory behaviour is necessary, but it must lead to a culture where people get called on their unacceptable behaviour immediately, not after a 20 year history of abusive conduct. If people are called on their initial transgression they are presumably less likely to go to the next step.

+ 1.
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: SurprisedByBeauty on December 03, 2017, 07:32:12 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on December 03, 2017, 06:37:13 AM
It has been the same in any case where there are 'star' performers who produce great revenue for their organizations. They come to be considered untouchable because of their economic value and/or status. If you report them you become the enemy of the organization. I would say the environment has been getting better over time but it is still a pervasive problem.

The moment we are in where famous people are being called on their predatory behaviour is necessary, but it must lead to a culture where people get called on their unacceptable behaviour immediately, not after a 20 year history of abusive conduct. If people are called on their initial transgression they are presumably less likely to go to the next step.

+ 2




The Grand Moral Reckoning, Classical Edition. James Levine In The Soup
(https://blogs-images.forbes.com/jenslaurson/files/2017/12/Mr-Levine-before-a-performance-of-Verdi-s-Requiem-on-Sept-18_WSJ_Modified.jpg?width=960)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenslaurson/2017/12/03/the-grand-moral-reckoning-classical-edition-james-levine-in-the-soup/#22b1e8c21d5b (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenslaurson/2017/12/03/the-grand-moral-reckoning-classical-edition-james-levine-in-the-soup/#22b1e8c21d5b)
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: SurprisedByBeauty on December 03, 2017, 07:36:37 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 03, 2017, 07:16:48 AM
My answer is "Absolutely not! There is a universal moral standard which applies to everyone! Being a great conductor is no excuse for pederasty / paedophilia."

NB: I don't know if Levine is truly guilty (and I'd be only too glad if he were officially exonerated). I say this as a matter of principle.

I agree -- which is one of the reasons I have always felt an anger at the big-wigs getting away with things in this industry that would NEVER fly in normal corporations.
But that's not to say that we, as a society (victims included, I'm sure), have operated on that assumption.
And how do you count the situation where a genius, because of his or her position, can show behavior that a mortal could never... and the target/non-victim genuinely doesn't mind. Very murky territory.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Todd on December 03, 2017, 07:42:06 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 03, 2017, 07:16:48 AMMy answer is Absolutely not! There is a universal moral standard which applies to everyone!


Perhaps, perhaps not.  Assuming it is true, does this universal moral standard prevent people from appreciating the work of monsters, or at least bad people?  How many people on this forum and in the world have enjoyed Roman Polanski movies?  Gesualdo's musical works?  Picasso's art works?  Chuck Berry's music?  Charlie Chaplin's movies?  Etc.

This does not excuse Levine's alleged behavior, or the behavior of the others I mentioned, or other transgressors, but the practical reality is that a lot of people routinely overlook immoral and criminal behavior in others.
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: Todd on December 03, 2017, 07:47:14 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on December 03, 2017, 06:37:13 AMbut it must lead to a culture where people get called on their unacceptable behaviour immediately, not after a 20 year history of abusive conduct.


That seems unlikely to be a permanent outcome of the current reckoning/hysteria/whatever you want to call it, at least in the US.  Power is still power.  If people in positions of authority make enough money for interested parties, or achieve other goals considered just as important, legal settlements will silence accusers/victims and allow it to continue.  I can see even more legal settlements in the future, but there are a lot now.  I can also see a push to remove nondisclosure provisions from settlements as standard practice and/or removing sanctions for violations of those provisions, but that will likely go nowhere, at least outside Congress.  I also expect more sensitivity and sexual harassment training throughout the corporate world, and presumably all levels of government, too, but that has been around a long time.  (AmPo recently published a piece with the supposedly startling revelation that such training has little to do with victims and almost everything to do with protecting the employer.  Who knew?)

Taking just Hollywood as an example, tales of the so-called "casting couch" are about as old as the industry, and modern feminism has been around for about half of the history of the industry (and variants of feminism pre-date the industry), yet here we are.  I'm not convinced that the current atmosphere, which owes much to the political situation in the country, will really change much.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 03, 2017, 07:53:15 AM
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on December 03, 2017, 07:36:37 AM
And how do you count the situation where a genius, because of his or her position, can show behavior that a mortal could never... and the target/non-victim genuinely doesn't mind. Very murky territory.

This is one of the most pernicious legacies of (philosophical) Romanticism: a genius is ipso facto beyond good and evil. And it is inextricably linked with another equally pernicious legacy of (philosophical) Romanticism*: epater le bourgeois is a legitimate artistic and social behavior.

* Much as I enjoy Romantic music (and art in general), I think that no other philosophical movement has contributed that much to the widespread acceptance of so many falsehoods, errors and lies, Marxism excepted.  ;D
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 03, 2017, 08:05:07 AM
Quote from: Todd on December 03, 2017, 07:42:06 AM
Perhaps, perhaps not.  Assuming it is true, does this universal moral standard prevent people from appreciating the work of monsters, or at least bad people?  How many people on this forum and in the world have enjoyed Roman Polanski movies?  Gesualdo's musical works?  Picasso's art works?  Chuck Berry's music?  Charlie Chaplin's movies?  Etc.

This does not excuse Levine's alleged behavior, or the behavior of the others I mentioned, or other transgressors, but the practical reality is that a lot of people routinely overlook immoral and criminal behavior in others.

Immoral and criminal behavior is the province of morality, ethics and law. The artistic output of immoral and criminal people is the province of aesthetics and personal taste. The vast majority of people who enjoy Gesualdo's music wouldn't murder their wife and her lover. The vast majority of people who enjoy Robert King's recordings are not paedophiles. The vast majority of people who enjoy Wagner's operas are not rabid antisemites.

Art is no excuse for immoral or criminal behaviour; conversely, immoral or criminal behaviour is no argument for dissmissing art.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Todd on December 03, 2017, 08:08:56 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 03, 2017, 08:05:07 AMArt is no excuse for immoral or criminal behaviour; conversely, immoral or criminal behaviour is no argument for dissmissing art.


Indeed.  But the practical acceptance of the latter - consuming artistic output - especially in the context of currently active artists, may contribute to more immoral or criminal behavior by currently active artists.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 03, 2017, 08:10:49 AM
The axe finally falls.

I've been aware of those rumors since the 1980s, and they seemed credible as they came from direct sources, specifically a couple of people who were working at Ravinia at the time. Also, the alleged victim went to the same high school as I did, though he was a few years behind me (I don't think I ever met him).

I didn't see mentioned in the article that, when taking up his post in Munich, Levine had to submit a statement from the NYPD to the effect that he had no police record. Apparently JL's conduct was an open secret for years, a "secret" that had crossed the ocean. Still, like any accused offender, he deserves his day in court.

In any case, I don't want him to be "unpersoned" in the Stalinist manner that is now becoming alarmingly fashionable again. His recordings should continue to be made available, without the conductor's named being redacted, or any of the other quasi-Orwellian measures coming back into fashion. And they aren't only his recordings, there are some great orchestras involved that presumably want to have their own legacy preserved. Levine, for good or evil, is a part of that.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Turner on December 03, 2017, 08:13:53 AM
So it seems to be a quite comprehensive affair, then.
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: Florestan on December 03, 2017, 08:24:36 AM
Quote from: Todd on December 03, 2017, 07:47:14 AM
That seems unlikely to be a permanent outcome of the current reckoning/hysteria/whatever you want to call it, at least in the US.  Power is still power.  If people in positions of authority make enough money for interested parties, or achieve other goals considered just as important, legal settlements will silence accusers/victims and allow it to continue. 

I agree. This only shows that the whole "legal settlements" philosophy is morally and socially flawed, if not downright pernicious in some cases.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: SurprisedByBeauty on December 03, 2017, 08:25:17 AM
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 03, 2017, 08:10:49 AM

I didn't see mentioned in the article that, when taking up his post in Munich, Levine had to submit a statement from the NYPD to the effect that he had no police record. Apparently JL's conduct was an open secret for years, a "secret" that had crossed the ocean. Still, like any accused offender, he deserves his day in court.

In any case, I don't want him to be "unpersoned" in the Stalinist manner that is now becoming alarmingly fashionable again. His recordings should continue to be made available, without the conductor's named being redacted, or any of the other quasi-Orwellian measures coming back into fashion. And they aren't only his recordings, there are some great orchestras involved that presumably want to have their own legacy preserved. Levine, for good or evil, is a part of that.

Yep, that happend. The Green Party made quite an appropriate fuss. In fact [=in rumor], it was considered that he needed the Munich time as a 'cool-down' period because things in New York had gotten too hot.

Couldn't agree more with that sentiment. I think that kind of reaction is ultimately much worse for society than facing wrong and dealing with it appropriately .
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mahlerian on December 03, 2017, 08:25:34 AM
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 03, 2017, 08:10:49 AMIn any case, I don't want him to be "unpersoned" in the Stalinist manner that is now becoming alarmingly fashionable again. His recordings should continue to be made available, without the conductor's named being redacted, or any of the other quasi-Orwellian measures coming back into fashion. And they aren't only his recordings, there are some great orchestras involved that presumably want to have their own legacy preserved. Levine, for good or evil, is a part of that.

I agree.  We can condemn the behavior without pretending the artistic legacy doesn't exist.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 03, 2017, 08:26:15 AM
Quote from: Todd on December 03, 2017, 08:08:56 AM

Indeed.  But the practical acceptance of the latter - consuming artistic output - especially in the context of currently active artists, may contribute to more immoral or criminal behavior by currently active artists.

No argument from me here.
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: Todd on December 03, 2017, 08:27:10 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 03, 2017, 08:24:36 AM
I agree. This only shows that the whole "legal settlements" philosophy is morally and socially flawed, if not downright pernicious in some cases.


I disagree.  Settlements are legitimate and sound in many or perhaps even most cases.
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: Florestan on December 03, 2017, 08:34:11 AM
Quote from: Todd on December 03, 2017, 08:27:10 AM
Settlements are legitimate and sound in many or perhaps even most cases.

In many or perhaps even most civil cases, I do agree. In many or perhaps even most criminal cases, I have  reservations.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 03, 2017, 01:37:22 PM
Quote from: Mahlerian on December 03, 2017, 08:25:34 AM
I agree.  We can condemn the behavior without pretending the artistic legacy doesn't exist.

In any case damnatio memoriae never works. If you appreciate irony, check out the stories detailed here. All these people have been officially erased from history, yet they are remembered, in some cases centuries later:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnatio_memoriae

BTW, the only composer I can think of who was fired for sexual harassment was Anton Bruckner. Apparently he addressed one of his teenage female students "in an inappropriately intimate manner" (or something along those lines) and was fired from his teaching position for that. He had a thing for teenage girls; that was well known. Doesn't stop me from enjoying any of his music.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: amw on December 03, 2017, 03:42:07 PM
Quote from: Todd on December 03, 2017, 08:08:56 AM

Indeed.  But the practical acceptance of the latter - consuming artistic output - especially in the context of currently active artists, may contribute to more immoral or criminal behavior by currently active artists.
An individual consumer buying or not buying a recording by James Levine is not going to make much of a difference. I think it is absolutely fair for people to bring immoral acts by artists to light and put pressure on management companies/labels/organisations/etc to disaffiliate, and on the artist himself to resign/apologise/cooperate with criminal prosecution, whilst also believing that his recording of Mahler's 2nd Symphony is a superlative example of its kind, whilst also understanding the drain of artistic potential caused by children he abused abandoning/not pursuing careers in classical music because of the trauma he put them through. (note that I do not actually know if his Mahler 2 is any good this is just an example)

I mean that's something we do a lot of.... enjoying the music of Britten whilst recognising that there might also have been great music by other people had Britten not been a sexual predator of musically talented boys (even if his behaviour did not meet criminal standards of sexual abuse) who subsequently felt traumatised and shut out of the musical establishment, etc.

(See also: the Yehudi Menuhin School, the Juilliard School, and numerous other music academies where gifted students are or were subject to sexual abuse.)
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Todd on December 03, 2017, 03:53:39 PM
Quote from: amw on December 03, 2017, 03:42:07 PMAn individual consumer buying or not buying a recording by James Levine is not going to make much of a difference.


It is true in the case of classical recordings, concert tickets, movie tickets and other methods of art consumption that rely on selling many units that individual purchases do not matter, but it is not true in other cases (eg, paintings, sculptures, commissioned works), hence the more general nature of my statement.  It is perfectly fine for people to bring immoral and illegal acts to light, bring pressure, and so forth.  For some people that is important; for others, it is not.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mahlerian on December 03, 2017, 03:59:01 PM
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 03, 2017, 01:37:22 PM
In any case damnatio memoriae never works. If you appreciate irony, check out the stories detailed here. All these people have been officially erased from history, yet they are remembered, in some cases centuries later:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnatio_memoriae

BTW, the only composer I can think of who was fired for sexual harassment was Anton Bruckner. Apparently he addressed one of his teenage female students "in an inappropriately intimate manner" (or something along those lines) and was fired from his teaching position for that. He had a thing for teenage girls; that was well known. Doesn't stop me from enjoying any of his music.

I don't remember that Bruckner was fired from his position, though I'm aware of his obsession with the virginity of potential mates (which is certainly creepy).

The one composer I can think of who was fired for sexual misconduct is Gombert (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Gombert), and they tried to erase him from the records too.

Quote from: amw on December 03, 2017, 03:42:07 PM(See also: the Yehudi Menuhin School, the Juilliard School, and numerous other music academies where gifted students are or were subject to sexual abuse.)

Most recently, a professor from the Cincinnati College Conservatory of Music was ousted.  I know someone who goes there, so that hits close.
Title: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on December 03, 2017, 04:07:06 PM
The Met has suspended Jimmy:

Met Opera Suspends James Levine After New Sexual Abuse Accusations https://nyti.ms/2BDJfTr

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: amw on December 03, 2017, 04:07:25 PM
Quote from: Todd on December 03, 2017, 03:53:39 PM

It is true in the case of classical recordings, concert tickets, movie tickets and other methods of art consumption that rely on selling many units that individual purchases do not matter, but it is not true in other cases (eg, paintings, sculptures, commissioned works), hence the more general nature of my statement.  It is perfectly fine for people to bring immoral and illegal acts to light, bring pressure, and so forth.  For some people that is important; for others, it is not.

Yes, that is true. I think in cases where financial pressure can be applied to the artist, it is more ethical to do so, and less ethical to continue financially supporting him. That's why putting pressure on the organisations that do have that kind of leverage (eg the Met) is important.

(Also yes, Bruckner was a creep. He constantly made passes at underage girls and apparently sometimes answered the door naked when expecting female company, at least according to legend. In his lifetime and afterwards people attributed his behaviour to him being a "country bumpkin" who didn't understand appropriate etiquette, à la Roy Moore, but nowadays we would consider it sexual harassment, à la Roy Moore.)
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 03, 2017, 05:14:06 PM
Quote from: Mahlerian on December 03, 2017, 03:59:01 PM
I don't remember that Bruckner was fired from his position, though I'm aware of his obsession with the virginity of potential mates (which is certainly creepy).

Hmm, I don't know enough to say if "obsession" is the right word, but a serious Catholic in a seriously Catholic society, who wanted to stay respectable, would certainly take "the virginity of potential mates" seriously.

But it's kind of a moot point since he never got married anyway. He did have a bagful of neuroses, including "counting disease" (the compulsion to count various random things, such as steps on a staircase or leaves on a tree), and the creepiest thing of all, his interest in exhuming and viewing dead bodies. Yet this weird bumpkin produced majestic "cathedrals in sound" like no other ("what a piece of work is man!" as Hamlet says).

Meanwhile, I see our fine local establishment, the Deer Path Inn, is being mentioned in the papers as the place where Levine did the alleged molestation. Don't let that put you off, they do a fine all-inclusive champagne brunch for $50:

http://thedeerpathinn.com/
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: bwv 1080 on December 03, 2017, 06:15:00 PM
Feldman was another with sexual misconduct albeit it came out posthumously when Bunita Marcos revealed his abuse. 

Agree the art can be separated from the individual character but for living artists there should be consequences.  If Levine was in good health when this came out it would be totally appropriate for him to suffer consequences to his career going forward while not diminishing the value of past contributions.  Philip Picket being an example in this regard
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: LKB on December 03, 2017, 06:31:39 PM
As someone has already suggested, merging this thread with http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,16111.20.html seems appropriate.

Q, feel free if you like.  8)

I'll probably have more OT observations during the coming week. Right now I'm too disgusted for anything cogent.

>:(,

LKB
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: amw on December 03, 2017, 07:03:57 PM
I have reservations about settlements being accompanied by NDAs. NDAs are typically used as a tool of the powerful to silence the less powerful (not that one can't foresee the potential for them to be useful, in circumstances that are more equitable).

I think a lot of women are just really tired of living in this culture where we're treated like objects and that's why this cultural moment has managed to survive for so long (and bring tangential benefits to young boys/men who have also been treated like objects, usually by the same people) but the balance of power has not shifted in any meaningful way and the backlash is already starting. Most likely, when Roy Moore is elected US Senator in a few weeks' time, that will be when the backlash begins in earnest starting from the top down as Democrats mount defences of their own members of Congress accused of sexual harassment/assault—instead of what they're doing now which is publicly saying they should resign but not otherwise putting any pressure on them—and men in media will retreat to the safer position of "well, we have to support this accused sexual harasser because the alternative is a Republican/Democrat" and start questioning the accounts of women who accuse someone on their "side" of harassment and etc. So I do think we have a couple more weeks to get everything out there but it's clearly not going anywhere. (President Trump allegedly raped a teenaged girl and sexually assaulted numerous other women and is not going anywhere after all, especially now that he got some corporate tax cuts passed.)
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mandryka on December 03, 2017, 08:41:36 PM
I only skimmed the news so this could be wrong,

The man who's complained to the police about Levine, I read somewhere that Levine gave him - he accepted - 50 000 USD. It sounds like the two were in some some sort of relationship for a long time. What I'm getting at is that it wasn't like a rape, it was more like an exchange. The man was 15 at the time of the first incident, when, he said, Levine held his hand sensually. What is the age of concent in the US? Here it's 16 - for sex, not for sensual hand holding.

Was the person damaged by his experiences with Levine? I hadn't read that.

(A composer who is famous for his sexual abuse is Nicolas Gombert.)
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: amw on December 03, 2017, 08:57:15 PM
I believe the $50,000 was a settlement?

Quote"The next morning I was late to rehearsal," said Mr. Brown [....] "I was in a complete daze. Whatever happens when you get abused had happened, and it wasn't just sexual."

At their next meeting, Mr. Brown said, he told Mr. Levine that he would not repeat the sexual behavior, and asked if they could continue to make music as they had before.

"And he answered no," Mr. Brown said, adding that Mr. Levine hardly looked at him for the rest of the summer, even while conducting him. "It was a terrible, terrible summer."

[...]

At one point in Cleveland, where he moved in 1969 to study at the Cleveland Institute of Music, he said that Mr. Levine encouraged the members of the group to put on blindfolds and masturbate partners they could not see. They did, Mr. Lestock said.

"This was the extent to which he had control," Mr. Lestock said. Another member of the group, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to guard his privacy, said that he had also taken part in a blindfolded masturbation session.

[...]

"I was vulnerable," said Mr. Pai, who is 48. "I was under this man's sway, I saw him as a safe, protective person, he took advantage of me, he abused me and it has really messed me up." He said that the relationship continued for years and that his feelings were complicated: He shared a copy of a Western Union Mailgram he had sent to Mr. Levine at the Salzburg Festival in 1988 that contained the postscript "P.S. I love you." But Mr. Pai came to realize that, in those early years, he had been too young to give consent.

So, yes. There are three accusers so far, but based on what's described in the article, likely other victims who haven't come forward yet.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mandryka on December 03, 2017, 08:59:26 PM
Quote from: amw on December 03, 2017, 08:57:15 PM
I believe the $50,000 was a settlement?

So, yes. There are three accusers so far, but based on what's described in the article, likely other victims who haven't come forward yet.
Thanks I hadn't seen that.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mahlerian on December 03, 2017, 08:59:54 PM
Quote from: Mandryka on December 03, 2017, 08:41:36 PM
I only skimmed the news so this could be wrong,

The man who's complained to the police about Levine, I read somewhere that Levine gave him - he accepted - 50 000 USD. It sounds like the two were in some some sort of relationship for a long time. What I'm getting at is that it wasn't like a rape, it was more like an exchange. The man was 15 at the time of the first incident, when, he said, Levine held his hand sensually. What is the age of concent in the US? Here it's 16 - for sex, not for sensual hand holding.

It is 16 here as well (in most places), but legally a person under the age of 18, being a minor, cannot give consent to sexual interaction with an adult more than a few years older.  It is considered "statutory rape," and is a crime regardless of whether the minor expressed consent verbally.

Quote from: Mandryka on December 03, 2017, 08:41:36 PMWas the person damaged by his experiences with Levine? I hadn't read that.

He says that he didn't realize it at the time, but he felt broken and suffered emotionally later on as a result.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mandryka on December 03, 2017, 09:08:03 PM
Quote from: Mahlerian on December 03, 2017, 08:59:54 PM
It is 16 here as well (in most places), but legally a person under the age of 18, being a minor, cannot give consent to sexual interaction with an adult more than a few years older.  It is considered "statutory rape," and is a crime regardless of whether the minor expressed consent verbally.




Ah, I've never come across this before, or I don't remember rather, I wonder if it's the case in the UK too. So when two people marry in the US, one can't be (eg) 16 and the other 32? (Here a 16 year old can marry, in Scotland the parents aren't involved - this is being reviewed now I think,)
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mahlerian on December 03, 2017, 09:13:49 PM
Quote from: Mandryka on December 03, 2017, 09:08:03 PMAh, I've never come across this before, or I don't remember rather, I wonder if it's the case in the UK too. So when two people marry in the US, one can't be (eg) 16 and the other 32?

Yes.  That would be illegal everywhere in the US.  The younger partner would have to be at least 18 to even participate in a relationship legally.

I should say that the main story here is not statutory rape, though, but coercion and sexual harassment/abuse.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Parsifal on December 03, 2017, 09:20:05 PM
Quote from: Mahlerian on December 03, 2017, 08:59:54 PM
It is 16 here as well (in most places), but legally a person under the age of 18, being a minor, cannot give consent to sexual interaction with an adult more than a few years older.  It is considered "statutory rape," and is a crime regardless of whether the minor expressed consent verbally.

I do not think that is correct. By definition the age of consent is the age at which a person is competent to consent to sexual intercourse. In the U.S. this is set at the state level and varies between 16 and 18 in the various states. If the age of consent is 16 in a jurisdiction statutory rape applies to a person less than 16. There can be additional statutes which result in increased penalties at different age cutoffs below the age of consent. There can also be provisions which mitigate the violation if the age difference between the participants is small even if one person is below the age of consent.

In Illinois the age of consent is 17, so the 16 year old could not consent, although the statues specify "penetration" as the illegal act. Sexual touching may not be meet the definition of rape in Illinois, although there may be other statues covering 'sodomy.'

However, a 40 year old man who uses his status as a teacher, mentor and as a world famous conductor to pressure 16 year olds into sex has certainly violated the terms of his employment and would be subject to unconditional and immediate dismissal, even if the act could not be prosecuted in a criminal court.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mahlerian on December 03, 2017, 09:28:09 PM
Quote from: Scarpia on December 03, 2017, 09:20:05 PM
I do not think that is correct. By definition the age of consent is the age at which a person is competent to consent to sexual intercourse. In the U.S. this is set at the state level and varies between 16 and 18 in the various states. If the age of consent is 16 in a jurisdiction statutory rape applies to a person less than 16. There can be additional statutes which result in increased penalties at different age cutoffs below the age of consent. There can also be provisions which mitigate the violation if the age difference between the participants is small even if one person is below the age of consent.

You are correct.  I was wrong, and I apologize.

Quote from: Scarpia on December 03, 2017, 09:20:05 PMHowever, a 40 year old man who uses his status as a teacher, mentor and as a world famous conductor to pressure 16 year olds into sex has certainly violated the terms of his employment and would be subject to unconditional and immediate dismissal, even if the act could not be prosecuted in a criminal court.

Right.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Parsifal on December 03, 2017, 09:30:38 PM
Quote from: Mahlerian on December 03, 2017, 09:28:09 PM
You are correct.  I was wrong, and I apologize.

No need to apologize being in error. It happens to everyone. No everyone is willing to admit it, however.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: SurprisedByBeauty on December 03, 2017, 11:38:00 PM
Quote from: Mandryka on December 03, 2017, 08:41:36 PM
I only skimmed the news so this could be wrong,

The man who's complained to the police about Levine, I read somewhere that Levine gave him - he accepted - 50 000 USD. It sounds like the two were in some some sort of relationship for a long time. What I'm getting at is that it wasn't like a rape, it was more like an exchange. The man was 15 at the time of the first incident, when, he said, Levine held his hand sensually. What is the age of concent in the US? Here it's 16 - for sex, not for sensual hand holding.

Was the person damaged by his experiences with Levine? I hadn't read that.

(A composer who is famous for his sexual abuse is Nicolas Gombert.)

I feel the same way, actually. Or similarish. If we imagined this as barter: Limited petting for 50k+ and a recommendation from James Levine, we could easily imagine this taking place as a voluntary exchange of goods and services. But in inter-personal relationships and with vast power-disequilibriums, it's rarely as clean cut of course. The thing's that behind this case, much more can be suspected with Levine. On the other hand, isn't it possible for an older person to behave innocently and wrongly at the same time, with minors? I'm thinking of Michael Jackson whom, judging from very much afar, of course, I've never seen as a child devouring monster but rather a case of sexual-social retardation; stuck at a child-like level... or seeking refuge in being stuck at that level. But I am probably muddying the waters.

Meanwhile I'm positively surprised that for once my article (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenslaurson/2017/12/03/the-grand-moral-reckoning-classical-edition-james-levine-in-the-soup/#22b1e8c21d5b), with its nowadays controversial take of preaching ambiguity rather than black & white, has received far more positive than negative responses... all awhile I'm being grilled on Twitter for not condemning "that monster" Mariss Jansons sufficiently.  ::)


QuoteNow it will come to the surprise of no one if tiny skeletons come tumbling out of James Levine's closet like candy from a piñata. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenslaurson/2017/12/03/the-grand-moral-reckoning-classical-edition-james-levine-in-the-soup/#22b1e8c21d5b)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenslaurson/2017/12/03/the-grand-moral-reckoning-classical-edition-james-levine-in-the-soup/#22b1e8c21d5b (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenslaurson/2017/12/03/the-grand-moral-reckoning-classical-edition-james-levine-in-the-soup/#22b1e8c21d5b)
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: vandermolen on December 04, 2017, 12:13:24 AM
I'd been aware of these rumours for many years as well.
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: Brian on December 04, 2017, 04:20:12 AM
Quote from: The new erato on December 03, 2017, 02:25:42 AM
Several Norwegian female classcal artists have recently come forward with deeply disturbing stories of sexual harassment in the classical music industry. Let me say that my dislike of a dead, major conductor has for years been grounded in what I consider a very trusthworthy story given in an interview 10 years ago by an internationally known Norwegian singer.
Is there any particular reason to conceal the name of the singer and conductor if the accusation is made on the record (as in this case)? I certainly understand in the case of unattributed rumors or "friend of a friend" stories - for instance, when a music-school classmate of mine said that when she was in a boarding school for 13-18 year olds, a visiting very famous musician (then 35-40) was unnaturally interested in the young girls. Or for further instance, Jens' allusion to various other elderly and semi-retired conductors being next to fall after Levine. But I don't think it's irresponsible to name a publicly accused figure in music, any more than it is to name, say, the American president.

No disrespect meant, erato, I am not criticizing you, I am sure it is a controversial subject.

(Incidentally I had no idea of the Levine rumors and am greatly disappointed that he is one of the monsters. Was just listening to one of his recordings Friday. It's amazing how these rumors can be both ubiquitous and inaudible at the same time - last happened with Kevin Spacey, which I thought everyone knew about until all my friends told me how shocked they were.)

As for Jansons, that's unfortunately a common sentiment among those trained in that part of the world. The much younger Vasily Petrenko has said all the same things.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Jo498 on December 04, 2017, 04:44:51 AM
If one wonders why people speak out now I am pretty sure that the current "climate" is relevant.
Or more precisely, in the 1970s the general mood, not only but especially in cultural/artistic/progressive circles seems to have been very liberal (or rather libertine). Borders are hardly ever clear (except with prepubescent children and even there the 70s were shockingly "open") and I dare the guess that nobody would have been all that scandalized by a 16 yo reporting homosexual interactions with a famous artist, mostly regardless of the legal status. So in addition to personal trauma, the general atmosphere made it probably futile to come forward with such accusations.
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 05:15:08 AM
Quote from: Brian on December 04, 2017, 04:20:12 AM
As for Jansons, that's unfortunately a common sentiment among those trained in that part of the world. The much younger Vasily Petrenko has said all the same things.

What did they say?
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: vandermolen on December 04, 2017, 05:32:58 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 05:15:08 AM
What did they say?

I was aware of rumours regarding Levine - not Jansons.
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 05:36:04 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 05:15:08 AM
What did they say?

Petrenko V. (not K., whose assistant is a woman of the female persuasion) said some really dumb things like "Musicians are distracted by 'cute girl on a podium'" and that "orchestras 'react better when they have a man in front of them'", followed by vaguely misogynist stuff like: "Musicians have often less sexual energy and can focus more on the music," adding that "when women have families, it becomes difficult to be as dedicated as is demanded in the business".

It's the mixture of being just a little bit right in a tiny aspect being embedded in vast ignorance that made these statements fairly obnoxious.

Mariss Jansons meanwhile expressed, when pressed, the opinion that "women conductors were not his cup of tea". An opinion shared by many people who are not, on account of that, misogynists. Though you'd never know, judging by the heated response to Jansons fairly innocuous comment. On Twitter, he's mentioned in the same sentence with Levine as someone who ought to be fired from his job. Insanity, if you ask me, and the next Forbes essay.

Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on December 04, 2017, 05:46:24 AM
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 05:36:04 AM
Petrenko V. (not K., whose assistant is a woman of the female persuasion) said some really dumb things like "Musicians are distracted by 'cute girl on a podium'" and that "orchestras 'react better when they have a man in front of them'", followed by vaguely misogynist stuff like: "Musicians have often less sexual energy and can focus more on the music," adding that "when women have families, it becomes difficult to be as dedicated as is demanded in the business".

It's the mixture of being just a little bit right in a tiny aspect being embedded in vast ignorance that made these statements fairly obnoxious.

Also, things are just socially backward enough in Russia, that this sexism has not been addressed to anything like the degree it has in the West.

Of course, as we see in America (and we're making her great again!) there is a significant majority who think that addressing the sexism is The Problem.  Let Men Be Boors, Damn It!
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 05:56:36 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 04, 2017, 05:46:24 AM
Also, things are just socially backward enough in Russia, that this sexism has not been addressed to anything like the degree it has in the West.

Of course, as we see in America (and we're making her great again!) there is a significant majority who think that addressing the sexism is The Problem.  Let Men Be Boors, Damn It!

Russian and - in Jansons case - old. Heck, even I find women on the podium still somewhat novel. And I grew up with Marin becoming MD in B'more and saw her regularly.

There's a significant difference between not pouring water on the mills of sexism and having an opinion that isn't fully politically correct. The latter is incredibly counter-productive, too. We can't get at the root of it, without addressing and, yes, even admitting to some politically incorrect facts, opinions, beliefs first. The think-police isn't helping the cause as much as they think they are.
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 06:00:26 AM
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 05:36:04 AM
Petrenko V. (not K., whose assistant is a woman of the female persuasion) said some really dumb things like "Musicians are distracted by 'cute girl on a podium'" and that "orchestras 'react better when they have a man in front of them'", followed by vaguely misogynist stuff like: "Musicians have often less sexual energy and can focus more on the music," adding that "when women have families, it becomes difficult to be as dedicated as is demanded in the business".

It's the mixture of being just a little bit right in a tiny aspect being embedded in vast ignorance that made these statements fairly obnoxious.

Mariss Jansons meanwhile expressed, when pressed, the opinion that "women conductors were not his cup of tea". An opinion shared by many people who are not, on account of that, misogynists. Though you'd never know, judging by the heated response to Jansons fairly innocuous comment. On Twitter, he's mentioned in the same sentence with Levine as someone who ought to be fired from his job. Insanity, if you ask me, and the next Forbes essay.

Thanks. There's a clear difference between Petrenko, who spoke on behalf of others (who might or might not agree) and Jansons, who expressed a personal position. Neither one nor the other comments, though, qualify even remotely as a reasonable enough cause for firing their authors.

QuoteInsanity, if you ask me, and the next Forbes essay.

Agreed.
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: Parsifal on December 04, 2017, 06:16:58 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 06:00:26 AM
Thanks. There's a clear difference between Petrenko, who spoke on behalf of others (who might or might not agree) and Jansons, who expressed a personal position. Neither one nor the other comments, though, qualify even remotely as a reasonable enough cause for firing their authors.

He is a performer who is paid a princes ransom to sell records and fill seats. If the expressed 'personal position' alienates the audience, it is cause for firing.

When I heard of Petrenko's cave-man mentality all interest in his recordings or performances vanished. The misdeeds of those who are dead and buried will not prevent me from listening to recordings but if my economic vote can help put an asshole out of a job I will do it.
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: Todd on December 04, 2017, 06:18:45 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on December 04, 2017, 06:16:58 AMIf the expressed 'personal position' alienates the audience, it is cause for firing.


It has for you, but has it for a material portion of the potential audience?
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 06:26:10 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on December 04, 2017, 06:16:58 AM
He is a performer who is paid a princes ransom to sell records and fill seats. If the expressed 'personal position' alienates the audience, it is cause for firing.

While I agree with that, where is the evidence that Petrenko's or Jansons' remarks have significantly alienated their audience and resulted in, for instance, massive drops in records (or ticket) sales and subscription cancelling?

Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 06:32:52 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on December 04, 2017, 06:16:58 AM
He is a performer who is paid a princes ransom to sell records and fill seats. If the expressed 'personal position' alienates the audience, it is cause for firing.

When I heard of Petrenko's cave-man mentality all interest in his recordings or performances vanished. The misdeeds of those who are dead and buried will not prevent me from listening to recordings but if my economic vote can help put an asshole out of a job I will do it.

That's correct and fair enough. But in that case I'd like that much honesty in the process. I.e. an employer saying: We disagree with what he said -- but we will not fire an employee for being disagreeable per se. However, we will sever our ties with said performer... because we fear that we might suffer economically if we didn't.

I'd have some respect for that.

It's the icky mixing of pseudo-morality and economics that I'm allergic to.

Quote from: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 06:26:10 AM
While I agree with that, where is the evidence that Petrenko's or Jansons' remarks have significantly alienated their audience and resulted in, for instance, massive drops in records (or ticket) sales and subscription cancelling?



No, none that I've heard of. But then neither were fired and no one is as of yet seriously thinking of firing Jansons. The twitter-insanity hasn't quite gripped the Bavarian Broadcasting Cooperation. Yet.
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 06:51:05 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on December 04, 2017, 06:16:58 AM
When I heard of Petrenko's cave-man mentality all interest in his recordings or performances vanished.

There is this other guy who claims that, after being healthy, the most important and pleasant thing in life is earning money; that music should have something for everyone; and that writing music which does not have an immediate audience is a waste of time and energy. Would you lose interest in his recordings if I told you who he is?
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: Brian on December 04, 2017, 06:54:59 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 06:51:05 AM
There is this other guy who claims that, after being healthy, the most important and pleasant thing in life is earning money; that music should have something for everyone; and that writing music which does not have an immediate audience is a waste of time and energy. Would you lose interest in his recordings if I told you who he is?

I don't understand your point here. One person said something sexist. Another person expressed feelings about life and art which aren't at all insulting or degrading or discriminatory. Why are you comparing them?
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mirror Image on December 04, 2017, 07:03:05 AM
Of course, Levine is a reptile of the slithy kind, but this does not affect my feelings about his musicianship nor will it affect anyone else's. In the music world (or really any of the performing arts for that matter), a person's character is overlooked, especially if their art has touched a great number of people. Music lives on no matter what the circumstances surrounding Levine will be.
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 07:05:57 AM
Quote from: Brian on December 04, 2017, 06:54:59 AM
I don't understand your point here. One person said something sexist. Another person expressed feelings about life and art which aren't at all insulting or degrading or discriminatory. Why are you comparing them?

I assume the point is an inquiry into the question of how much extra-musical-matters with which we don't concur (for different reasons, as is obvious from the examples) play into our appreciation of an artist.

What if we learned that Pierre Fournier had been a sexist. That Heifetz didn't care about recycling. That Rubinstein secretly denied global warning. That Vivaldi did his best fiddling in A minor... oh, the possibilities.  :o

Quote from: Todd on December 04, 2017, 07:08:34 AM

Man, I thought him being a Nazi collaborator was bad enough.

;D :laugh:
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: Todd on December 04, 2017, 07:08:34 AM
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 07:05:57 AMWhat if we learned that Pierre Fournier had been a sexist.


Man, I thought him being a Nazi collaborator was bad enough.
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: vandermolen on December 04, 2017, 07:12:21 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 06:00:26 AM
Thanks. There's a clear difference between Petrenko, who spoke on behalf of others (who might or might not agree) and Jansons, who expressed a personal position. Neither one nor the other comments, though, qualify even remotely as a reasonable enough cause for firing their authors.

Agreed.

Totally agree with Andrei here.

And I had read the Jansons comments and did not think that was what people meant.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 04, 2017, 07:16:36 AM
Quote from: Jo498 on December 04, 2017, 04:44:51 AM
If one wonders why people speak out now I am pretty sure that the current "climate" is relevant.
Or more precisely, in the 1970s the general mood, not only but especially in cultural/artistic/progressive circles seems to have been very liberal (or rather libertine).

This is true. Look at the behavior of virtually any rock star of that period. Yet nowadays they're revered "elder statesmen" (if they haven't already killed themselves through their own misbehavior).

Quote from: Scarpia on December 04, 2017, 06:16:58 AM
When I heard of Petrenko's cave-man mentality

Classical music is truly multicultural and this can cause problems, it appears. What you call his "cave-man mentality" is the default mode of the whole world, outside the small minority living in Western Europe and certain of its colonial offshoots.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on December 04, 2017, 07:21:44 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 04, 2017, 07:03:05 AM
Of course, Levine is a reptile of the slithy kind, but this does not affect my feelings about his musicianship nor will it affect anyone else's.

Agreed (and I think the point has been raised ere now).

I admit that I had to overcome The Ick Factor in order to approach Woody Allen's work.  But I did.

And the strong possibility of Levine's behavior is not new to me, and has not interfered with (e.g.) my fetching in some of his Mahler recordings this year.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 07:23:11 AM
Quote from: Jo498 on December 04, 2017, 04:44:51 AM
If one wonders why people speak out now I am pretty sure that the current "climate" is relevant.
Or more precisely, in the 1970s the general mood, not only but especially in cultural/artistic/progressive circles seems to have been very liberal (or rather libertine).

+ 1.

Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 04, 2017, 07:16:36 AM
This is true. Look at the behavior of virtually any rock star of that period. Yet nowadays they're revered "elder statesmen" (if they haven't already killed themselves through their own misbehavior).

+ 1.

Quote
Classical music is truly multicultural and this can cause problems, it appears. What you call his "cave-man mentality" is the default mode of the whole world, outside the small minority living in Western Europe and certain of its colonial offshoots.

+ 1.

Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 07:27:11 AM
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 07:05:57 AM
I assume the point is an inquiry into the question of how much extra-musical-matters with which we don't concur (for different reasons, as is obvious from the examples) play into our appreciation of an artist.

Precisely. And I chose that example because (1) judging by his posts, Scarpia is into serious music and musicmaking and doesn't regard them as nothing more than a high-income job pandering indiscriminately to audience's tastes, and (2) I'm sure he has at least a handful of recordings featuring the guy in question.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Parsifal on December 04, 2017, 07:32:52 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 04, 2017, 07:03:05 AM
Of course, Levine is a reptile of the slithy kind, but this does not affect my feelings about his musicianship nor will it affect anyone else's. In the music world (or really any of the performing arts for that matter), a person's character is overlooked, especially if their art has touched a great number of people. Music lives on no matter what the circumstances surrounding Levine will be.

In my view, "Music" is not more important than human beings. If Levine had been sacked and consigned to working at MacDonalds then some other conductor would have gotten a break, we'd still have our music and a bunch of human beings would have been spared the trauma and/or wrecked careers.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: LKB on December 04, 2017, 07:37:15 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on December 04, 2017, 07:32:52 AM
In my view, "Music" is not more important than human beings. If Levine had been sacked and consigned to working at MacDonalds then some other conductor would have gotten a break, we'd still have our music and a bunch of human beings would have been spared the trauma and/or wrecked careers.

+1,

LKB
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mirror Image on December 04, 2017, 07:39:36 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on December 04, 2017, 07:32:52 AMIn my view, "Music" is not more important than human beings. If Levine had been sacked and consigned to working at MacDonalds then some other conductor would have gotten a break, we'd still have our music and a bunch of human beings would have been spared the trauma and/or wrecked careers.

I certainly do not condone the behavior of Levine (or anyone else who has done this that's in a position of authority). What I am saying is that the music that Levine had a part in creating won't change people's opinion of him from a musical standpoint. A superb conductor in every respect, but as a human being...not so much.
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: Parsifal on December 04, 2017, 07:54:14 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 06:51:05 AM
There is this other guy who claims that, after being healthy, the most important and pleasant thing in life is earning money; that music should have something for everyone; and that writing music which does not have an immediate audience is a waste of time and energy. Would you lose interest in his recordings if I told you who he is?

If he or she thinks that music should have the widest audience he or she may not make music to my taste. Otherwise it wouldn't bother me. HvK was obsessed with electronic media and wanted the BPO to be heard by millions of people. It didn't make the music any better or worse. (And I don't think anyone mistook him for an admirable human being.) I don't think that artists are generally good people. Mostly they are assholes and their primary value is the scrawls they put on the page. But they should not above the law.

A conductor manages a highly skilled workforce. If he or she interferes with that workforce that is a dereliction of duty. If he lets personal prejudice interfere with the careers of those under his influence that is a dereliction of duty.

Jansons remarks are not illegal. But his employer can bluntly inform him that they violate the policies of the organization. They can notify him that he should keep them to himself and any evidence that he is letting them influence hiring decisions is unacceptable.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 07:55:33 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 04, 2017, 07:39:36 AM
I certainly do not condone the behavior of Levine (or anyone else who has done this that's in a position of authority). What I am saying is that the music that Levine had a part in creating won't change people's opinion of him from a musical standpoint. A superb conductor in every respect, but as a human being...not so much.

I also must say that as a person not involved in his* alleged predatory or possibly just unseemly or uncouth acts, I enjoy (with only a tiny amount of guilt) the liberty of loving the work of the artist and not having to give a damn about the private person.

On the other hand, I've been greatly annoyed that they are covered for by their surroundings and not held to a proper standard. That's not good for them, either; Levine (if all is true that's always been rumored) was no monster... he was allowed to slip into the act of one, because he never had to hear a firm no from anyone. So even if we love the art, not the artist, we still have some duty (ill defined) not to let it get that far in the first place. Perhaps we'll wake up to that.


* J.Levine, R.Wagner, Gesualdo, M.Pletnev, W.Furtwaengler, R.Strauss - insert your favorite... Incidentally, in opera I find most of Levine's tempos to be too damn slow.

Quote from: Scarpia on December 04, 2017, 07:54:14 AM
Jansons remarks are not illegal.

That shouldn't even have to be remarked. And not followed by a "but".

QuoteBut his employer can bluntly inform him that they violate the policies of the organization. They can notify him that he should keep them to himself and any evidence that he is letting them influence hiring decisions is unacceptable.

"Women conductors are not my cup of tea" does not violate any policy of any organization in the world, except the OFTEXAWOC, of course, the "Organization For The EXplicit Appreciation of WOmen Conductors".
And he's not in charge of hiring conductors. But his employer has the right to say: Your views as you aired them are hurting the organization -- they're out of touch and present a liability for the future of the orchestra. (Not that they do -- and if they did, there'd be something far more wrong with society than Jansons.) But in principle that's fair.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 07:58:37 AM
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 07:55:33 AM
W.Furtwaengler, R.Strauss

What outrageous deeds are they known for?
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 08:01:03 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 07:58:37 AM
What outrageous deeds are they known for?

Mitläufertum, at the least. Doesn't matter. Any transgression, real or imagined, will do.  ;)
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Parsifal on December 04, 2017, 08:08:34 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 04, 2017, 07:39:36 AM
I certainly do not condone the behavior of Levine (or anyone else who has done this that's in a position of authority). What I am saying is that the music that Levine had a part in creating won't change people's opinion of him from a musical standpoint. A superb conductor in every respect, but as a human being...not so much.

The music already recorded, it is done. I would never suggest suppressing it out of respect to all of the others involved. But he never should have had the privilege of making that music at the expense of other people's lives. He was not indispensable. I would give up all that music to protect his victims.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 04, 2017, 08:08:59 AM
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 07:55:33 AM

On the other hand, I've been greatly annoyed that they are covered for by their surroundings and not held to a proper standard. That's not good for them, either; Levine (if all is true that's always been rumored) was no monster... he was allowed to slip into the act of one, because he never had to hear a firm no from anyone. So even if we love the art, not the artist, we still have some duty (ill defined) not to let it get that far in the first place. Perhaps we'll wake up to that.

Yeah, the wretched thing about all this is that they (the Met, the Ravinia mgmt.) could have intervened decades ago - no hush money, fewer warped lives - but they let the situation fester and rot for years and years. Now it all blows up in their faces.

Quote... Incidentally, in opera I find most of Levine's tempos to be too damn slow.

Not only in opera, but I generally do like him as a conductor. However, since he's mostly a "standard-rep" sort of guy, few of his recordings really stand out because the competition is so stiff. The only Levine recording I consider essential is the one with the Carter Variations for Orchestra and several other pieces - a nice snapshot of mid-century American modernism.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mirror Image on December 04, 2017, 08:11:51 AM
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 07:55:33 AM
I also must say that as a person not involved in his* alleged predatory or possibly just unseemly or uncouth acts, I enjoy (with only a tiny amount of guilt) the liberty of loving the work of the artist and not having to give a damn about the private person.

On the other hand, I've been greatly annoyed that they are covered for by their surroundings and not held to a proper standard. That's not good for them, either; Levine (if all is true that's always been rumored) was no monster... he was allowed to slip into the act of one, because he never had to hear a firm no from anyone. So even if we love the art, not the artist, we still have some duty (ill defined) not to let it get that far in the first place. Perhaps we'll wake up to that.


* J.Levine, R.Wagner, Gesualdo, M.Pletnev, W.Furtwaengler, R.Strauss - insert your favorite... Incidentally, in opera I find most of Levine's tempos to be too damn slow.

No argument from me. I largely agree.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 04, 2017, 08:14:41 AM
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 07:55:33 AM
"Women conductors are not my cup of tea" does not violate any policy of any organization in the world, except the OFTEXAWOC, of course, the "Organization For The EXplicit Appreciation of WOmen Conductors".

If Riccardo Muti said "American composers are not my cup of tea" (which, judging from his programming choices, may well be true), I wouldn't be outraged in the least. It's his honest opinion and he's entitled to it. But I would wonder why such a person had been made MD of a major American orchestra when maybe more suitable candidates were available.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: LKB on December 04, 2017, 08:21:31 AM
My opinion, fwiw:

An established conductor/soloist/composer/whatever who is also an abuser or predator, upon reading commentary separating criminal conduct from artistic contribution, may well think, " So, as long as l keep the concert money coming in and produce quality media for my fans, l can keep f**king with children as much as l like. The label/institution will cover for me, and the fans will keep supplying me with dollars. "

It's a variation on the old saying: lf you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

If these allegations against Levine turn out to be accurate, every one of us should turn away from him completely. That's how we can avoid enabling other predatory and abusive artists.

Regards,

LKB
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Parsifal on December 04, 2017, 08:30:58 AM
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 07:55:33 AMOn the other hand, I've been greatly annoyed that they are covered for by their surroundings and not held to a proper standard. That's not good for them, either; Levine (if all is true that's always been rumored) was no monster... he was allowed to slip into the act of one, because he never had to hear a firm no from anyone. So even if we love the art, not the artist, we still have some duty (ill defined) not to let it get that far in the first place. Perhaps we'll wake up to that.

That is a point I have tried to make somewhere above perhaps in another thread. Outing the transgressor after 20 years doesn't do anyone any good. We need to make a culture where even the powerful get called on their behavior, before they do something unforgivable. Almost anyone will make a small transgression at some point, intentionally or unintentionally. A non-privileged person gets pushed back, is mortified, and recognizes a boundary. A "star" doesn't get push back and falls into ever more unacceptable behavior. 

Quote
"Women conductors are not my cup of tea" does not violate any policy of any organization in the world, except the OFTEXAWOC, of course, the "Organization For The EXplicit Appreciation of WOmen Conductors".
And he's not in charge of hiring conductors. But his employer has the right to say: Your views as you aired them are hurting the organization -- they're out of touch and present a liability for the future of the orchestra. (Not that they do -- and if they did, there'd be something far more wrong with society than Jansons.) But in principle that's fair.

I don't know what his job is. It is my understanding that music directors have a role in selecting guest conductors. If I am a subscriber to his orchestra and female conducts are systematically excluded from consideration because they are not Janson's "cup of tea" that is a problem. I don't say he has to be chained to a chair and forced to listen to them.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Parsifal on December 04, 2017, 08:32:16 AM
Quote from: LKB on December 04, 2017, 08:21:31 AM
My opinion, fwiw:

An established conductor/soloist/composer/whatever who is also an abuser or predator, upon reading commentary separating criminal conduct from artistic contribution, may well think, " So, as long as l keep the concert money coming in and produce quality media for my fans, l can keep f**king with children as much as l like. The label/institution will cover for me, and the fans will keep supplying me with dollars. "

It's a variation on the old saying: lf you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

If these allegations against Levine turn out to be accurate, every one of us should turn away from him completely. That's how we can avoid enabling other predatory and abusive artists.

Regards,

LKB

+1
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mirror Image on December 04, 2017, 08:34:48 AM
Quote from: LKB on December 04, 2017, 08:21:31 AM
My opinion, fwiw:

An established conductor/soloist/composer/whatever who is also an abuser or predator, upon reading commentary separating criminal conduct from artistic contribution, may well think, " So, as long as l keep the concert money coming in and produce quality media for my fans, l can keep f**king with children as much as l like. The label/institution will cover for me, and the fans will keep supplying me with dollars. "

It's a variation on the old saying: lf you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

If these allegations against Levine turn out to be accurate, every one of us should turn away from him completely. That's how we can avoid enabling other predatory and abusive artists.

Regards,

LKB

Looking at the long line of musicians who have abused, violated, or even molested other people, if we take a stand against them and cut them off completely, then what will I listen to? ;) The problem is the fact that they got away with it for this long. It should've been dealt a swift hand immediately and brought to the media's attention and legal action should have been taken after the incident has been reported. It puzzles me that all of this time has elapsed and nothing was done about it when it was happening. Perhaps the main problem is the organizations that know of the problem and don't do anything about it right away. They're as much at fault as the transgressors. Look how long it took to get rid of Matt Lauer or Harvey Weinstein. Anyway, at the end of the day, for me, the beauty of art triumphs over anything that happens on this earth.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on December 04, 2017, 08:37:15 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on December 04, 2017, 07:32:52 AM
In my view, "Music" is not more important than human beings. If Levine had been sacked and consigned to working at MacDonalds then some other conductor would have gotten a break, we'd still have our music and a bunch of human beings would have been spared the trauma and/or wrecked careers.

Yes.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Parsifal on December 04, 2017, 08:37:49 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 04, 2017, 08:34:48 AMAnyway, at the end of the day, for me, the beauty of art triumphs over anything that happens on this earth.

The beauty of art is trivial compared with the suffering of a human being.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: bwv 1080 on December 04, 2017, 08:38:25 AM
How are the revenues from Levine's symphonic recordings allocated?  They certainly don't all go to Levine - the composer (if not public domain), the performers, the symphony organization, the record company etc all get a portion. 
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on December 04, 2017, 08:41:09 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on December 04, 2017, 08:30:58 AM
That is a point I have tried to make somewhere above perhaps in another thread. Outing the transgressor after 20 years doesn't do anyone any good.

That is absolutely true.  What I think we may really hope to achieve is, an environment where the transgressors are not systemically privileged and shielded.  I know this is not your point, but it is not as if it was the "fault" of the victims that they "did not raise their concerns at the proper time" -- which is exactly the "defense" of those who still support the child-molesting-probably-soon-to-be-Senator of Alabama.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 08:45:38 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on December 04, 2017, 08:30:58 AM
We need to make a culture where even the powerful get called on their behavior, before they do something unforgivable. Almost anyone will make a small transgression at some point, intentionally or unintentionally. A non-privileged person gets pushed back, is mortified, and recognizes a boundary. A "star" doesn't get push back and falls into ever more unacceptable behavior. 

Yes, but that presupposes the general acknowledgment of the fact there are universal moral standards --- and as Jo correctly pointed out, at least from the Sixties onwards such a notion has been discarded and ridiculed, mainly, and more forcefully, by exactly the artistic / intellectual milieu on both sides of the Atlantic, with the Americans and the Frenchmen being the worst offenders. And with a plethora of "stars" being marketed as role models, is it any wonder that this pernicious mentality spread wide in the society?
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Parsifal on December 04, 2017, 08:46:16 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 04, 2017, 08:41:09 AM
That is absolutely true.  What I think we may really hope to achieve is, an environment where the transgressors are not systemically privileged and shielded.  I know this is not your point, but it is not as if it was the "fault" of the victims that they "did not raise their concerns at the proper time" -- which is exactly the "defense" of those who still support the child-molesting-probably-soon-to-be-Senator of Alabama.

Sorry, I meant no implication that we should "let sleeping dogs lie." The moment we are in where high profile transgressors are being called out is necessary. It needs to lead to something to a culture where the powerful are not shielded from the consequences of their actions.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 08:46:35 AM
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 04, 2017, 08:14:41 AM
If Riccardo Muti said "American composers are not my cup of tea" (which, judging from his programming choices, may well be true), I wouldn't be outraged in the least. It's his honest opinion and he's entitled to it. But I would wonder why such a person had been made MD of a major American orchestra when maybe more suitable candidates were available.

But is that the (proper) measure of suitability?

"So, you've conducted the Bucharest Operatic Society Orchestra and graduated from the Klagenfurt Amalgamated Community School of Conducting and Waste Management summa cum laude. Very well. But let's now get to the crucial question before we offer you the job of music director of the Berlin Philharmonic: How much do you truly enjoy watching female conductors?!"   :P

Quote from: Scarpia on December 04, 2017, 08:30:58 AM
I don't know what his job is. It is my understanding that music directors have a role in selecting guest conductors. If I am a subscriber to his orchestra and female conducts are systematically excluded from consideration because they are not Janson's "cup of tea" that is a problem. I don't say he has to be chained to a chair and forced to listen to them.

Frankly, there aren't ENOUGH female conductors out there, to even get to systematically exclude them. What's the ratio of active conductors now? Of graduates starting? That may -- will -- change, though. There's strength in numbers. And THEN we'll have a real conversation.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 08:54:29 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on December 04, 2017, 08:37:49 AM
The beauty of art is trivial compared with the suffering of a human being.

You mean that in the very specific context of a criminal artist, I assume. Because if taken in a general, unqualified way, it leads to absurd conclusions. Right now, as I'm typing this, millions and millions of people suffer in degrees ranging from mild to atrocious. Should this stop us from listening to music, reading books or contemplating paintings? All throughout history, millions and millions of people have suffered in degrees ranging from mild to atrocious. Should it have stopped other people from composing, writing or painting altogether?
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Parsifal on December 04, 2017, 08:56:29 AM
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 08:46:35 AMrankly, there aren't ENOUGH female conductors out there, to even get to systematically exclude them. What's the ratio of active conductors now? Of graduates starting? That may -- will -- change, though. There's strength in numbers. And THEN we'll have a real conversation.

They are not there because of the Jansons' of the world. I don't say he has to be drawn and quartered. He has to be told to shut up.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Parsifal on December 04, 2017, 09:03:43 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 08:54:29 AM
You mean that in the very specific context of a criminal artist, I assume. Because if taken in a general, unqualified way, it leads to absurd conclusions. Right now, as I'm typing this, millions and millions of people suffer in degrees ranging from mild to atrocious. Should this stop us from listening to music, reading books or contemplating paintings? All throughout history, millions and millions of people have suffered in degrees ranging from mild to atrocious. Should it have stopped other people from composing, writing or painting altogether?

It leads to none of the absurd conclusions have dreamed up. Refraining from listening to music performed or reading books written will not relieve any suffering. Refusing to watch a Levine DVD will not relieve the suffering of any of his victims. But depriving him of the post that gave him access to his victims would have prevented profound suffering, and I would not hesitate to sacrifice those musical productions in order to prevent the suffering that was entailed.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Brian on December 04, 2017, 09:04:33 AM
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 04, 2017, 08:08:59 AM
The only Levine recording I consider essential is the one with the Carter Variations for Orchestra and several other pieces - a nice snapshot of mid-century American modernism.
In case this is the right place for these thoughts... I think the Big Panache Stuff suited Levine well. Love his DG Gershwin and "Planets", and his Met "Falstaff" (though that's largely because Ambrogio Maestri is so wonderful). The CSO Brahms box is pretty exciting, get-the-blood-moving stuff.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 09:08:40 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on December 04, 2017, 08:56:29 AM
They are not there because of the Jansons' of the world. I don't say he has to be drawn and quartered. He has to be told to shut up.

As someone who has actually lived in a regime where everybody was told exactly that: "just do your job and shut up!", I strongly disagree. People are not robots, they think and feel and that's what make them human. Forbidding them to express their thoughts and feelings, or forcing them to conform, willy-nilly, to what the official ideology dictates in matters of thought and feeling means depriving them of their humanity, besides being the surest way to corrupt public morality and create an unhealthy social environment.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 09:12:01 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on December 04, 2017, 09:03:43 AM
I would not hesitate to sacrifice those musical productions in order to prevent the suffering that was entailed.

In other words, you would do... what, exactly?
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Parsifal on December 04, 2017, 09:16:18 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 09:12:01 AM
In other words, you would do... what, exactly?

Do I have to repeat myself? Upon receiving information that he had used us position to abuse children, I would have relieved him of his duties and advised his victims to seek pursue legal action.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 09:17:08 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on December 04, 2017, 09:16:18 AM
Do I have to repeat myself. Upon receiving information that he had used us position to abuse children, I would have relieved him of his duties and advised his victims to seek pursue legal action.

Oh, I agree with that wholeheartedly. I say even more: everyone at Met or wherever else he was employed, who was in a position of authority over him, was aware of his behavior and did nothing should be considered as having aided and abetted criminal behaviour.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 04, 2017, 09:21:22 AM
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 08:46:35 AM
But is that the (proper) measure of suitability?

For me it is. American orchestras should play (more) American music. Other folks however (like the CSO management) have different priorities apparently.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Parsifal on December 04, 2017, 09:28:11 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 09:08:40 AM
As someone who has actually lived in a regime where everybody was told exactly that: "just do your job and shut up!", I strongly disagree. People are not robots, they think and feel and that's what make them human. Forbidding them to express their thoughts and feelings, or forcing them to conform, willy-nilly, to what the official ideology dictates in matters of thought and feeling means depriving them of their humanity, besides being the surest way to corrupt public morality and create an unhealthy social environment.

If you are employed by a company, you are expected to refrain from making statement contrary to the mission of your company when speaking in an official capacity, or when you remarks are likely to be associated with the company. If you work as a receptionist for planned parenthood, you cannot tell patients in the waiting room that they are going to hell. If the management of an orchestra informs its music director that they do not want to him to give interviews in which he derides female conductors, this will not deprive him of his humanity.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 09:38:15 AM
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 04, 2017, 09:21:22 AM
For me it is. American orchestras should play (more) American music. Other folks however (like the CSO management) have different priorities apparently.

I don't have that nationalist element to my predilections, I think... so I can't quite relat. I want good music be played, Australian, American, Austrian or otherwise. And I want my conductors to manage to lead exciting performances, not wear a skirt or trousers or be this or that. But how is that related to 'really enjoying female conductors', anyway?

Quote from: Scarpia on December 04, 2017, 08:56:29 AM
They are not there because of the Jansons' of the world. I don't say he has to be drawn and quartered. He has to be told to shut up.

I strongly disagree with that! Conductors are male because a.) orchestras wouldn't really accept female conductors. And b.) because, for a multitude of reasons (including lacking prospects, which is in turn related to A.) because there were so very, very few of them. And what are the chances that out of 10,000 conductors, 95% of which are not particularly distinguished or distinctive, the few women are all geniuses? Mind you, the few women all HAD TO BE above average to make it in the first place. Alsop et al. had to give 100% where a male of her talent got away with less. But this already leads to the very different discussion of WHY there are few women conductors, not whether it's OK not to be into them. (Though I think those two are, again, related: There aren't enough to be impressed by, yet.)
Anyway, in all of this, I think that Jansons is at worst a symptom or symbolic of something... but not an active hinderer who stood in the way of the advancement of women. He may not have fought for it, actively, but he wasn't the problem.

Btw.: I love this back and forth; it's civilized and it sharpens me and it readies me to be (hopefully!) to be more perceptive of the alternative arguments. (It will make me write a better OpEd. :-) )

Quote from: Brian on December 04, 2017, 09:04:33 AM
In case this is the right place for these thoughts... I think the Big Panache Stuff suited Levine well. Love his DG Gershwin and "Planets", and his Met "Falstaff" (though that's largely because Ambrogio Maestri is so wonderful). The CSO Brahms box is pretty exciting, get-the-blood-moving stuff.

But back to Levine: Yes, his Brahms is quite amazing; I really like his (extreme) Vienna Brahms (http://a-fwd.to/6DPiNXu)! Also his MET Strauss and so forth.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on December 04, 2017, 09:41:13 AM
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 09:38:15 AM
[...] Conductors are male because a.) orchestras wouldn't really accept female conductors. And b.) because, for a multitude of reasons (including lacking prospects, which is in turn related to A.) because there were so very, very few of them. And what are the chances that out of 10,000 conductors, 95% of which are not particularly distinguished or distinctive, the few women are all geniuses? Mind you, the few women all HAD TO BE above average to make it in the first place. Alsop et al. had to give 100% where a male of her talent got away with less. But this already leads to the very different discussion of WHY there are few women conductors, not whether it's OK not to be into them. (Though I think those two are, again, related: There aren't enough to be impressed by, yet.)

Anyway, in all of this, I think that Jansons is at worst a symptom or symbolic of something... but not an active hinderer who stood in the way of the advancement of women. He may not have fought for it, actively, but he wasn't the problem.

Yes.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 09:43:30 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on December 04, 2017, 09:28:11 AM
If the management of an orchestra informs its music director that they do not want to him to give interviews in which he derides female conductors

Well, if they didn't inform him about that by now, it probably means that nowhere in his contract is there any clause forbidding him to give interviews in which he derides female conductors says female conductors are not his cup of tea. What they want him to do or not to do is irrelevant: he is entitled to do, with respect to his job, whatever his contract does not explicitly prohibit him to do. They can only suggest that he shut up on the matter; order him to shut up they cannot. Can we at least agree on that?
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on December 04, 2017, 09:46:05 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 09:43:30 AM
Well, if they didn't inform him about that by now, it probably means that nowhere in his contract is there any clause forbidding him to give interviews in which he derides female conductors says female conductors are not his cup of tea.

But when 98% of the tea on the shelf is male conductors, that is for all intents derisory, isn't it?  At the very least, condescending.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on December 04, 2017, 09:50:17 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 04, 2017, 09:46:05 AM
But when 98% of the tea on the shelf is male conductors, that is for all intents derisory, isn't it?  At the very least, condescending.

Parenthetically:  the female conductor in whose orchestra I played for three years was a conductor superior to four male conductors whose batons I followed in the six years following.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Parsifal on December 04, 2017, 09:51:19 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 09:43:30 AM
Well, if they didn't inform him about that by now, it probably means that nowhere in his contract is there any clause forbidding him to give interviews in which he derides female conductors says female conductors are not his cup of tea. What they want him to do or not to do is irrelevant: he is entitled to do, with respect to his job, whatever his contract does not explicitly prohibit him to do. They can only suggest that he shut up on the matter; order him to shut up they cannot. Can we at least agree on that?

They can tell him, "if you keep making remarks like this to the press we will be looking for a new music director." An employee is generally bound by his or her contract to abide by the company's mission statement, which typically includes verbiage to the effect that "we are an equal opportunity employer and value the contribution of all individuals, regardless of gender or ethnic background, etc, etc, etc."
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Todd on December 04, 2017, 09:54:57 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on December 04, 2017, 09:51:19 AMwhich typically includes verbiage to the effect that "we are an equal opportunity employer and value the contribution of all individuals, regardless of gender or ethnic background, etc, etc, etc."


Perhaps in the US, but it would surprise me if that were the case for all the orchestras Jansons has conducted.  I seriously doubt the Vienna Philharmonic has verbiage to that effect.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Parsifal on December 04, 2017, 09:57:11 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 04, 2017, 09:50:17 AM
Parenthetically:  the female conductor in whose orchestra I played for three years was a conductor superior to four male conductors whose batons I followed in the six years following.

Reminds me of a story. A few decades ago there was a controversy that there were many black baseball players but few black pitchers. In the everyday racism that was tolerated in the day, the rational was bandied about that black people just were not suited to be pitchers (which was considered to be a high prestige position which involved intellectual skill). An elementary statistical analysis showed that the average black pitcher had significantly better stats that the average white pitcher, providing fairly definitive proof that black pitchers were discriminated against. (A black pitcher had to pass a higher criteria to be admitted to the baseball league.)
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 09:58:58 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 04, 2017, 09:46:05 AM
But when 98% of the tea on the shelf is male conductors, that is for all intents derisory, isn't it?  At the very least, condescending.

I am not sure that people who hold Jansons' opinion in some form would agree with that. If you asked them if MALE conductors were their cup of tea, they'd be forced to distinguish and say: Well, I like SOME.
The discriminatory part, if it's that much, of Jansons' answer was actually the bit where he didn't distinguish between the class (female) and the individual (Sophie Bansraueuter, a highly mediocre conductor I just made up). If I defend him, it's in part because I say that there are as of yet so few, and conducting so specialized an activity so dependent on others to work, that the lack of distinction is understandable.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 10:04:55 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 04, 2017, 09:46:05 AM
But when 98% of the tea on the shelf is male conductors,

A situation for which Jansons bears no responsibility, and one that will not be remedied (if it is indeed in a dire need for remediation, which is debatable) by forbidding people to express other points of view than those which are deemed "progressive".

Quote
that is for all intents derisory, isn't it?  At the very least, condescending.

100% of the composers constituing the canon of Western music, and who are listened to and discussed here on GMG on a daily basis, are male. 98% (and I'm being generous) of the great pianists or violinists (men and women alike) discussed and listened to here on GMG on a daily basis recorded music written by males only. Why is this amply documented GMG behavior not deemed derisory or condescending towards women? (Or maybe it is, who knows...)



Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 10:05:25 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on December 04, 2017, 09:57:11 AM
Reminds me of a story. A few decades ago there was a controversy that there were many black baseball players but few black pitchers. In the everyday racism that was tolerated in the day, the rational was bandied about that black people just were not suited to be pitchers (which was considered to be a high prestige position which involved intellectual skill). An elementary statistical analysis showed that the average black pitcher had significantly better stats that the average white pitcher, providing fairly definitive proof that black pitchers were discriminated against. (A black pitcher had to pass a higher criteria to be admitted to the baseball league.)

That is in fact a great measure and point. Fortunately baseball works quite well with statistics, where such a pernicious bias can be measured.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on December 04, 2017, 10:06:12 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on December 04, 2017, 09:57:11 AM
Reminds me of a story. A few decades ago there was a controversy that there were many black baseball players but few black pitchers. In the everyday racism that was tolerated in the day, the rational was bandied about that black people just were not suited to be pitchers (which was considered to be a high prestige position which involved intellectual skill). An elementary statistical analysis showed that the average black pitcher had significantly better stats that the average white pitcher, providing fairly definitive proof that black pitchers were discriminated against. (A black pitcher had to pass a higher criteria to be admitted to the baseball league.)


Aye.

Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 09:58:58 AM
I am not sure that people who hold Jansons' opinion in some form would agree with that. If you asked them if MALE conductors were their cup of tea, they'd be forced to distinguish and say: Well, I like SOME.
The discriminatory part, if it's that much, of Jansons' answer was actually the bit where he didn't distinguish between the class (female) and the individual (Sophie Bansraueuter, a highly mediocre conductor I just made up). If I defend him, it's in part because I say that there are as of yet so few, and conducting so specialized an activity so dependent on others to work, that the lack of distinction is understandable.

"Female conductors are not my cup of tea" does seem to presuppose that (while he is coyly expressing 'an opinion') it is a matter of reviewing the nature of the musical world, and the nature of female conductors.  But per Scarps's observation above, there are environmental barriers (not absolutely impermeable, but that is perhaps the best that can be said) to women getting in the game, so that they can try themselves and develop.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 04, 2017, 10:12:04 AM
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 09:38:15 AM
I don't have that nationalist element to my predilections, I think... so I can't quite relat. I want good music be played, Australian, American, Austrian or otherwise. And I want my conductors to manage to lead exciting performances, not wear a skirt or trousers or be this or that.

I think there should be some space for cultural nationalism or cultural protectionism or whatever you want to call it, provided it doesn't get out of hand. Think of "Canadian content," for example. Otherwise I agree with everything else you say.

QuoteBut how is that related to 'really enjoying female conductors', anyway?

What matters is not whether Jansons enjoys this or that, but whether he is actively obstructing the progress of female conductors. If he isn't, no big deal. I don't care what a person likes or doesn't like, as long as he isn't breaking the rules.

Same thing with my hypothetical Muti example. If Muti doesn't like American composers, I don't care, that's just his opinion. But as someone who wants more American music played, I would support potential other MDs for that reason, as a matter of policy.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Parsifal on December 04, 2017, 10:17:34 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 10:04:55 AM
A situation for which Jansons bears no responsibility, and one that will not be remedied (if it is indeed in a dire need for remediation, which is debatable) by forbidding people to express other points of view than those which are deemed "progressive".
Maybe you do not care if it is remedied, but females may care that careers are closed to them.

Quote
100% of the composers constituing the canon of Western music, and who are listened to and discussed here on GMG on a daily basis, are male. 98% (and I'm being generous) of the great pianists or violinists (men and women alike) discussed and listened to here on GMG on a daily basis recorded music written by males only. Why is this amply documented GMG behavior not deemed derisory or condescending towards women? (Or maybe it is, who knows...)

It is because women are implicitly told (though the default culture) that this is not a job where you will be accepted. The same is true in science. Remarks like Janson's seemingly innocuous comment are part of it.

Here is another statistic. In 1983 the college degrees awarded in computer science in the U.S. were almost equal by gender, 60/40, male vs female. By 2006 the female share dropped to 17%. Why? In the intervening years personal computers by Atari, Apple and IBM had become popular and computers were marked as a toy for men and boys. Before that girls did not realize that it was not for them.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on December 04, 2017, 10:18:03 AM
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 04, 2017, 10:12:04 AM
What matters is not whether Jansons enjoys this or that, but whether he is actively obstructing the progress of female conductors. If he isn't, no big deal. I don't care what a person likes or doesn't like, as long as he isn't breaking the rules.

The present discussion is in effect throwing it under the microscope, but, no:  it was rather a snotty thing to say, but to be fair, it isn't any matter of broken rules.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 10:18:45 AM
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 04, 2017, 10:12:04 AM
What matters is not whether Jansons enjoys this or that, but whether he is actively obstructing the progress of female conductors. If he isn't, no big deal. I don't care what a person likes or doesn't like, as long as he isn't breaking the rules.

This.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 10:19:12 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 04, 2017, 10:06:12 AM

"Female conductors are not my cup of tea" does seem to presuppose that (while he is coyly expressing 'an opinion') it is a matter of reviewing the nature of the musical world, and the nature of female conductors.  But per Scarps's observation above, there are environmental barriers (not absolutely impermeable, but that is perhaps the best that can be said) to women getting in the game, so that they can try themselves and develop.

Except that in conducting, the person doing it is only very partially responsible for its success. Your success is how 100 other people react to you. Which is why conducting is such a later reforming position; such a weathervane for progress (real or symbolic).
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on December 04, 2017, 10:20:42 AM
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 10:19:12 AM
Except that in conducting, the person doing it is only very partially responsible for its success. Your success is how 100 other people react to you. Which is why conducting is such a later reforming position; such a weathervane for progress (real or symbolic).

Oh, indeed.  And if a student female conductor is trying to do the job in front of an orchestra 45% populated by people whose cup of tea she ain't?
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 04, 2017, 10:23:40 AM
Quote from: San Antonio on December 04, 2017, 10:21:18 AM
Why?

Because I like it?
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 10:27:36 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on December 04, 2017, 10:17:34 AM
Maybe you do not care if it is remedied, but females may care that careers are closed to them.

Oh, please. There are few female conductors not because Jansons doesn't like them, but because there are few women willing to pursue such a career (as opposed to the numerous females actively pursuing careers as performers, singers and orchestra members). End of story.

Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Parsifal on December 04, 2017, 10:30:55 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 10:27:36 AM
End of story.

That means your brain is turned off?
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on December 04, 2017, 10:37:25 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 10:27:36 AM
Oh, please. There are few female conductors not because Jansons doesn't like them, but because there are few women willing to pursue such a career (as opposed to the numerous females actively pursuing careers as performers, singers and orchestra members). End of story.

Well, I should have known that it was this simple!  Clearly my posts earlier were a waste of everyone's time.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 10:38:05 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on December 04, 2017, 10:30:55 AM
That means your brain is turned off?

People usually use ad hominem when their stock of rational arguments is depleted, but why you felt the need to use it beats me.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 10:43:40 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 04, 2017, 10:37:25 AM
Well, I should have known that it was this simple!  Clearly my posts earlier were a waste of everyone's time.

Could you (or somebody else, for that matter) indicate a person, or an organization, who / which hindered the career of a female conductor?
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Parsifal on December 04, 2017, 10:44:18 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 10:38:05 AM
People usually use ad hominem when their stock of rational arguments is depleted, but why you felt the need to use it beats me.

Nothing ad hominem about it, you stated "End of Story" which implies you consider the discussion closed. That's fine with me.

One final though. It is okay for Janson's to say "woman conductors are not my cup of tea." It would also be okay for him to say "Black conductors are not my cup of tea," or "Jewish conductors are not my cup of tea?" If these statements are not the same as the first, what is the difference?
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 10:57:15 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 04, 2017, 10:20:42 AM
Oh, indeed.  And if a student female conductor is trying to do the job in front of an orchestra 45% populated by people whose cup of tea she ain't?

But that's exactly the point I'm trying to make: It takes a far broader and more broad-minded change, to level THAT playing-field. Some think that aggression speeds up the process; I say patience, within limits, may do more... depending on the situation. Moreover, the "cup of tea" statement doesn't suggest that someone's mind is closed. Prejudice is actually OK, within fairly wide limits, if one is aware of it and if one doesn't discriminate based on it. I go into concerts with prejudice all the time -- but I don't think I've never not been swayed by a great performance. Arguably I would be more critical of something middle-of-the-run by someone I feel less well inclined about... but then I'm also aware of the bias and may try to compensate. In any case, we can't outlaw feelings and change attitudes by force. We can do that only with the soft power of conviction, setting examples, understanding, compassion yaddayadda.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Parsifal on December 04, 2017, 11:00:18 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 10:43:40 AM
Could you (or somebody else, for that matter) indicate a person, or an organization, who / which hindered the career of a female conductor?

Maris Jansons.

The typical development path for a conductor is to work as assistant conductor and/or be mentored by working conductors. Abbado and Ozawa were protegees of von Karajan, if memory serves. Maris Janson's statement "woman conductors are not my cup of tea" seems like a fairly unambiguous indication that "females need not apply." No. Maris Janson is not the only person who can foster the career of an aspiring conductor, but if his attitude is the default, there is your block for female conductors.

There is also the factor that orchestras may not respect the authority of a female conductor. Well, if von Karajan or Solti had summoned a female to the podium and said, 'here is my new assistance conductor, who will be leading the preliminary rehearsals this week. Any Questions?" that might have helped.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 04, 2017, 11:03:45 AM
Quote from: San Antonio on December 04, 2017, 10:25:57 AM
You like it because it is American?  Does all American music share some quality that you find especially pleasing?


No, but frankly SA, in view of your eclectic and wide-ranging tastes, I'm surprised to receive such a reply from you. You don't strike me as the sort of guy who'd be satisfied with endless Beethoven and Brahms cycles played under "star conductors" until the end of time.

Let me concretize this. I was willing to go downtown and pay the ever increasing ticket prices to hear Slatkin conduct Schuman's 6th Symphony a couple of years ago. I'm not willing to do that to hear Muti conduct Brahms, even if Brahms is a better composer than Schuman.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 11:05:22 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on December 04, 2017, 11:00:18 AM
Maris Jansons.

Please name the female conductor(s) whose career was hindered by him.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 04, 2017, 11:07:35 AM
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 10:57:15 AM
But that's exactly the point I'm trying to make: It takes a far broader and more broad-minded change, to level THAT playing-field. Some think that aggression speeds up the process; I say patience, within limits, may do more... depending on the situation. Moreover, the "cup of tea" statement doesn't suggest that someone's mind is closed. Prejudice is actually OK, within fairly wide limits, if one is aware of it and if one doesn't discriminate based on it.

This reminds me of something Orwell said in one of his essays, that if you have a prejudice, probably the best approach is to recognize it and try not to let it poison your thinking. (I wish I could find the exact quote, but I have to get back to work now.)
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Brian on December 04, 2017, 11:15:50 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 11:05:22 AM
Please name the female conductor(s) whose career was hindered by him.
This reply is not logical and you know it. Jansons is guilty as member of a regime system which suppressed female voices, not as a specific hinderer of specific careers. There are probably 20+ female conductors we cannot name, and we cannot name them because they were discouraged by teachers, professionals, role models, etc., from pursuing a career in which they were not welcome.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: yekov on December 04, 2017, 11:17:45 AM
I don't know James Levine. I enjoyed some of his performances and I assume he's a great conductor. However, what's been happening with celebrities and rich people over the past couple of months is something like the great purge of 1930s . Every male celebrity must be now living a nightmare that someone could accuse him of anything even if it didn't happen or was unintentional some decades ago. The accusations should be in court not on the internet.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Parsifal on December 04, 2017, 11:23:10 AM
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 10:57:15 AMMoreover, the "cup of tea" statement doesn't suggest that someone's mind is closed.

I would prefer not to tie this to too closely Jansons, because I really don't know what is in his heart.

But my interpretation of that language is just the opposite. If he had said "I haven't come across any female conductors that are really effective" that would be an empirical preference that could be modified by more experience. When he says "woman conductors are not my cup of tea" that sounds like a preference that he does not intend to question or revise, even in light of new evidence.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Parsifal on December 04, 2017, 11:24:01 AM
Quote from: Brian on December 04, 2017, 11:15:50 AM
This reply is not logical and you know it. Jansons is guilty as member of a regime system which suppressed female voices, not as a specific hinderer of specific careers. There are probably 20+ female conductors we cannot name, and we cannot name them because they were discouraged by teachers, professionals, role models, etc., from pursuing a career in which they were not welcome.

+1
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 11:24:17 AM
Quote from: Brian on December 04, 2017, 11:15:50 AM
Jansons is guilty as member of a regime system which suppressed female voices, not as a specific hinderer of specific careers.

No offense meant but you sound exactly like the communist commissars who sent hundreds of thousands of people to jail in Romania after 1947: "Even if you personally have not done anything wrong or bad against the proletariat, the very fact that you are a member of the bourgeois regime system marks you as an enemy of the people".

Quote
There are probably 20+ female conductors we cannot name, and we cannot name them because they were discouraged by teachers, professionals, role models, etc., from pursuing a career in which they were not welcome.

Here's a question for you (and others): exactly how many female conductors are there?

Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Todd on December 04, 2017, 11:25:32 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on December 04, 2017, 10:44:18 AMIt would also be okay for him to say . . . "Jewish conductors are not my cup of tea?"


This would be a very odd thing for Jansons to say.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Todd on December 04, 2017, 11:50:12 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on December 04, 2017, 11:48:48 AM
You got me there, I guess I'm negligent for failing to maintain a database of who's Jewish.


No database needed: Google it. 
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mahlerian on December 04, 2017, 12:53:45 PM
Quote from: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 10:04:55 AM100% of the composers constituing the canon of Western music, and who are listened to and discussed here on GMG on a daily basis, are male. 98% (and I'm being generous) of the great pianists or violinists (men and women alike) discussed and listened to here on GMG on a daily basis recorded music written by males only. Why is this amply documented GMG behavior not deemed derisory or condescending towards women? (Or maybe it is, who knows...)

I listen to music by women composers regularly.  I should think anyone who listens to contemporary music does the same.  The reason why there weren't "great women composers" during the common practice period has more to do with societal dynamics than some sort of innate deficit of ability, the same as with conductors.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Parsifal on December 04, 2017, 01:47:12 PM
Jansons did not say, "it's difficult for a female conductor to gain the respect of a professional orchestra," he said, in effect, " I don't want to see female conductors." Why is that acceptable?

To be honest, you have made me feel that classical music establishment is something despicable. I have a $100 dollar gift card sitting in my amazon account and I was assuming it would go to classical purchases. You have caused me to resolve that not one penny will go to classical music. I don't feel good about supporting the misogyny.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Brian on December 04, 2017, 02:48:31 PM
Damn. Scarpia was a great great GMGer and I'm not happy that Levine, or you guys, or the establishment, or whomever persuaded him to quit.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: amw on December 04, 2017, 03:12:11 PM
The classical music establishment is indeed awful and misogynistic, always has been. If you feel uncomfortable with that, one good way to change the culture is to support female artists and executives and call out misogynists and other creeps loudly and persistently. It's up to you whether you want to buy the music of the various misogynists. (On the left we typically say there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. But obviously since you need to consume certain things in order to survive, avoiding consumption is not an option—you focus on overthrowing capitalism. I think the same principle applies to classical music, except for the part about you needing to consume it in order to survive, obviously)
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mirror Image on December 04, 2017, 03:28:47 PM
Quote from: Brian on December 04, 2017, 02:48:31 PM
Damn. Scarpia was a great great GMGer and I'm not happy that Levine, or you guys, or the establishment, or whomever persuaded him to quit.

A shame that he had to leave this way. He and I weren't always on the same page, but I respected his opinions. Let's hope he has a change of heart. Scarpia, if you're reading this, don't leave!
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 04:01:27 PM
Scarpia, damned: Disagree with us, get annoyed at us... but don't quit on us.

Your opinion is valuable to us -- and the more we disagree with it, the more we need it. Don't deprive us of diversity on select issues, because you think that... well, I don't know what you think, to be honest. Just get back in, if you will. I've quit this in a huff, twice... which was silly esp. the second time around (the first time I let Karl Henning scare me off --  ;D). But it's more fun with the multitudes. Also, I'm not happy that you think we're all rampaging sexists that help keep this business in the dark ages. I don't think that's truly the intention/opinion/aim of any of us.

Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: ComposerOfAvantGarde on December 04, 2017, 05:32:50 PM
Quote from: Mahlerian on December 04, 2017, 12:53:45 PM
I listen to music by women composers regularly.  I should think anyone who listens to contemporary music does the same.  The reason why there weren't "great women composers" during the common practice period has more to do with societal dynamics than some sort of innate deficit of ability, the same as with conductors.

Florestan's great infatuation with Romanticism probably means he is well aware of the societal dynamics of the past, and the so called 'western canon' is something he surely knows only resulted from this............
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: ComposerOfAvantGarde on December 04, 2017, 05:49:52 PM
Quote from: amw on December 04, 2017, 03:12:11 PM
The classical music establishment is indeed awful and misogynistic, always has been. If you feel uncomfortable with that, one good way to change the culture is to support female artists and executives and call out misogynists and other creeps loudly and persistently. It's up to you whether you want to buy the music of the various misogynists. (On the left we typically say there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. But obviously since you need to consume certain things in order to survive, avoiding consumption is not an option—you focus on overthrowing capitalism. I think the same principle applies to classical music, except for the part about you needing to consume it in order to survive, obviously)

Also my gratefulness that the 'metoo' movement on social media has at least become as mainstream movement in a misogynistic world.......

Well I think we have to live with the reality of capitalism being the main economic system in which contemporary society operates and it certainly is possible to be a socially conscious consumer.......but I think that putting the onus on consumers to be socially conscious will not really do anything to change the fact that an orchestra or opera company might regularly hire a misogynist or rapist or whatever. It is up to board members and those who have particular power to make decisions like that to say 'it is against the company standards to have a conductor who believes misogynistic things and therefore we won't hire them' or 'due to the great wealth of underrepresented contemporary composers who aren't male, we aim to support the talents of those whose music we believe is of the highest quality by reaching out to more underrepresented composers' and stuff like that.

You probably agree, or have a better understanding of this than I do, though.

But I do feel that society tends to make individual consumers make decisions rather than those with the power to do so addressing the roots of the problems themselves.......
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 10:49:52 PM
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 04:01:27 PM
Scarpia, damned: Disagree with us, get annoyed at us... but don't quit on us.

Your opinion is valuable to us -- and the more we disagree with it, the more we need it. Don't deprive us of diversity on select issues, because you think that... well, I don't know what you think, to be honest. Just get back in, if you will. [...] I'm not happy that you think we're all rampaging sexists that help keep this business in the dark ages. I don't think that's truly the intention/opinion/aim of any of us.

My thoughts exactly.

Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 10:50:40 PM
Quote from: jessop on December 04, 2017, 05:32:50 PM
Florestan's great infatuation with Romanticism probably means he is well aware of the societal dynamics of the past, and the so called 'western canon' is something he surely knows only resulted from this............

Thanks, buddy.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Turner on December 04, 2017, 11:05:25 PM
Quote from: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 10:04:55 AM
100% of the composers constituing the canon of Western music, and who are listened to and discussed here on GMG on a daily basis, are male. 98% (and I'm being generous) of the great pianists or violinists (men and women alike) discussed and listened to here on GMG on a daily basis recorded music written by males only. Why is this amply documented GMG behavior not deemed derisory or condescending towards women? (Or maybe it is, who knows...)

Polemical exaggerations? Of course, regarding the composers, things have changed during mid-late 20th century in particular, and it is fair to say that women composers are advancing in numbers now (cf. for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_composers_by_birth_date).

Also, I don´t agree about the 98% of musicians dealt with here being males, I think a count would show otherwise.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 11:08:21 PM
Quote from: Turner on December 04, 2017, 11:05:25 PM
I don´t agree about the 98% of musicians dealt with here being males, a count would show otherwise.

You misunderstood me. Please read again: "98% (and I'm being generous) of the great pianists or violinists (men and women alike) discussed and listened to here on GMG on a daily basis recorded music written by males only".
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Turner on December 04, 2017, 11:10:40 PM
Quote from: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 11:08:21 PM
You misunderstood me. Please read again: "98% (and I'm being generous) of the great pianists or violinists (men and women alike) discussed and listened to here on GMG on a daily basis recorded music written by males only".

You are right, I misunderstood that passage. Sorry, early in the morning for me :).
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 11:16:12 PM
Quote from: Turner on December 04, 2017, 11:05:25 PM
regarding the composers, things have changed during mid-late 20th century in particular, and it is fair to say that women composers are advancing in numbers now (cf. for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_composers_by_birth_date).

That is very true and very fine. But the fact remains that the vast majority of the composers who are discussed here on a daily basis are male. Is this an indication that GMG is a sexist and mysoginistic club? By some views here expressed, it is, but I don't hink there's any rational argument for such a stance.

As for female conductors, Wikipedia lists 134 of them, spread over five continents. Is it much? Is it little?
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 11:21:16 PM
Quote from: Turner on December 04, 2017, 11:10:40 PM
You are right, I misunderstood that passage. Sorry, early in the morning for me :).

No problem, can happen to anyone. Happened to myself more than once.  :)
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 11:21:44 PM
Who'dda thought that this thread got more controversial as we moved from alleged kiddie-fiddling to the perceived lack of women-conductors.  ???
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 11:24:51 PM
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 11:21:44 PM
Who'dda thought that this thread got more controversial as we moved from alleged kiddie-fiddling to the perceived lack of women-conductors.  ???

Well, afaik the most controversial and nasty GMG thread ever, replete with public and private insults of the grossest kind, was on Haydn. Go figure.  :laugh:
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 11:45:01 PM
Fwiw, here is the full quote from Jansons.

In an interview for The Telegraph, Ivan Hewett asked Jansons how he felt about 'the biggest change in the conducting scene' – the increase in female conductors over Jansons's career.

"Hmm, well. Well I don't want to give offence," said Jansons, "and I am not against it, that would be very wrong. I understand the world has changed, and there is now no profession that can be confined to this or that gender. It's a question of what one is used to. I grew up in a different world, and for me seeing a woman on the podium... well, let's just say it's not my cup of tea."


And the sequel:

In a statement issued via the Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra, Jansons sought to clarify his statement.

"I come from a generation in which the conducting profession was almost exclusively reserved to men. Even today, many more men than women pursue conducting professionally. But it was undiplomatic, unnecessary and counterproductive for me to point out that I'm not yet accustomed to seeing women on the conducting platform.

"Every one of my female colleagues and every young woman wishing to become a conductor can be assured of my support, for we all work in pursuit of a common goal: to excite people for the art form we love so dearly – music."


Bottom line: he said something which many perceived as stupid and he eventually regretted it publicly. The whole fuss about the matter is greatly exaggerated, and so is his vilification.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: ComposerOfAvantGarde on December 05, 2017, 01:35:11 AM
Jansons, from what I had read (and it seems both Florestan and I were already familiar with the quoted sources) just acknowledged that his views were outdated. It can understandably be difficult for someone to try to adjust to a world where a parochial world view no longer matches reality. Mistakes are made and Jansons only seems uncomfortable that he is no longer living a life sheltered from this reality, knowing he probably should change his attitude anyway.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: amw on December 05, 2017, 02:36:12 AM
Quote from: jessop on December 04, 2017, 05:49:52 PM
Also my gratefulness that the 'metoo' movement on social media has at least become as mainstream movement in a misogynistic world.......

Well I think we have to live with the reality of capitalism being the main economic system in which contemporary society operates and it certainly is possible to be a socially conscious consumer.......but I think that putting the onus on consumers to be socially conscious will not really do anything to change the fact that an orchestra or opera company might regularly hire a misogynist or rapist or whatever. It is up to board members and those who have particular power to make decisions like that to say 'it is against the company standards to have a conductor who believes misogynistic things and therefore we won't hire them' or 'due to the great wealth of underrepresented contemporary composers who aren't male, we aim to support the talents of those whose music we believe is of the highest quality by reaching out to more underrepresented composers' and stuff like that.

You probably agree, or have a better understanding of this than I do, though.

But I do feel that society tends to make individual consumers make decisions rather than those with the power to do so addressing the roots of the problems themselves.......
I do agree with all this, but it's certainly good to lay it out in detail..... and yes it seems very difficult to achieve any kind of structural shift in society, which is mostly because the powerful really do not want to be held accountable and will shift responsibility in any way they can.

We are obviously fortunate that at this moment having an accused sexual abuser or a misogynist or some other not very friendly sort of person in a position of power is seen as bad for business, and therefore that position of power is diminished in some way (except for the part where sometimes you can become president of the USA if your opponent is also terrible but happens to be a woman/minority/other disadvantaged group person). We can't rely on that always being the case. Now is obviously a good time to push as many of those people out of power as possible and try to promote women who may have been denied equitable treatment under the current system. But in the long term, obviously, systemic change is needed.

There was a situation that stuck in my memory recently where a new music competition (I think Gaudeamus?) awarded only 15%, or something like that, of its awards to women composers. They were asked why and replied that it was a blind judging contest, and as it happened, only about 15% of the applications had been from women. That's kind of a pattern across the professional music world: the numbers of female composers are usually between 10 and 15% at any given event, institution, etc—sometimes more, sometimes less (I think less than 10% of orchestral commissions go to female composers on average for instance, because orchestra commissions target big names and big names are more likely to be men). But at the primary school level, right before high school, 50% of composers are female..... as one might expect. And then the numbers drop off pretty rapidly: only about 33% by the time composers finish high school and 20% by the time they finish their undergraduate degree.

It's not a huge mystery as to why that is. The start of high school is also, for many girls, the start of a constant regime of sexual harassment and aggression from men—usually much older men—that will follow them everywhere. (It typically starts earlier, from ages 6-10—8 for me—but ages 13+ is when it starts to become very common.) Their male peers will start to pick up this behaviour from the men they look up to. Girls end up organising into groups, and avoiding areas where there is a high concentration of men or boys, and this is almost subconscious. (If you're an autistic weirdo like me and don't manage to get into one of the groups, high school becomes very lonely, and occasionally scary. My personal #metoo story dates from first year of high school.) Even in the context of music schools one sees this, where things like composition class get fewer female students because they are more male-dominated, and things like string classes get more female students because they are less male-dominated, and the cycle perpetuates itself ad infinitam in the absence of affirmative action and stricter sexual harassment policies.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on December 05, 2017, 03:03:57 AM
We all know that when the speaker employs the preface I don't want to give offense, he's asking for a pass while he says something he knows to be offensive.

Raise your hand if you have heard now-President Trump use that rhetorical dodge.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on December 05, 2017, 03:04:54 AM
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on December 04, 2017, 10:57:15 AM
But that's exactly the point I'm trying to make: It takes a far broader and more broad-minded change, to level THAT playing-field. Some think that aggression speeds up the process; I say patience, within limits, may do more... depending on the situation. Moreover, the "cup of tea" statement doesn't suggest that someone's mind is closed. Prejudice is actually OK, within fairly wide limits, if one is aware of it and if one doesn't discriminate based on it. I go into concerts with prejudice all the time -- but I don't think I've never not been swayed by a great performance. Arguably I would be more critical of something middle-of-the-run by someone I feel less well inclined about... but then I'm also aware of the bias and may try to compensate. In any case, we can't outlaw feelings and change attitudes by force. We can do that only with the soft power of conviction, setting examples, understanding, compassion yaddayadda.

Heartily agreed.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: The new erato on December 05, 2017, 05:20:34 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 10:49:52 PM
My thoughts exactly.
Me as well.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Ken B on December 05, 2017, 11:36:17 AM
Quote from: Brian on December 04, 2017, 11:15:50 AM
This reply is not logical and you know it. Jansons is guilty as member of a regime system which suppressed female voices, not as a specific hinderer of specific careers. There are probably 20+ female conductors we cannot name, and we cannot name them because they were discouraged by teachers, professionals, role models, etc., from pursuing a career in which they were not welcome.

Nonsense. This is what Florestan asked for
QuoteCould you (or somebody else, for that matter) indicate a person, or an organization, who / which hindered the career of a female conductor?

Did he get an organization as an answer? No, he got one named person. Then when he asked for an example of a woman conductor held back by Jansons -- as a person not as an organization -- he gets this.

Aside from that it is never illogical to ask for evidence.

Some people should read Feynman.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mahlerian on December 05, 2017, 12:24:44 PM
Quote from: Ken B on December 05, 2017, 11:36:17 AMAside from that it is never illogical to ask for evidence.

Some people should read Feynman.

It's illogical to demand evidence when evidence has already been presented that satisfied the conditions asked for at the beginning.  Changing the conditions in order to keep demanding higher and higher standards of evidence makes it impossible to ever prove anything.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mirror Image on December 05, 2017, 06:20:42 PM
Quote from: Ken B on December 05, 2017, 11:36:17 AM
Nonsense. This is what Florestan asked for
Did he get an organization as an answer? No, he got one named person. Then when he asked for an example of a woman conductor held back by Jansons -- as a person not as an organization -- he gets this.

Aside from that it is never illogical to ask for evidence.

Some people should read Feynman.

You're back again? I thought you left? :-\ With all these people leaving and then coming back, it gets rather confusing.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 06, 2017, 12:12:55 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on December 05, 2017, 12:24:44 PM
It's illogical to demand evidence when evidence has already been presented that satisfied the conditions asked for at the beginning. 

There was no evidence whatsoever that has already been presented that Mariss Jansons, by his own actions, hindered the career of a woman conductor. Associating him with a perceived "regime system which supresses women voices" is no evidence at all; it is guilt by association which would be laugh out of any court (except, of course, the communist ones, as I said previously). Furthermore, it is preposterous, given that Jansons's recordings, far from supressing women voices, actually feature them. Ask Felicity Lott, Julia Hamari, Sarah Chang or Midori.

Quote
Changing the conditions in order to keep demanding higher and higher standards of evidence makes it impossible to ever prove anything.

I asked "name individual X or organization Y", and then when individual X has been named, I asked for evidence regarding him. What conditions did I change, pray tell?

Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on December 06, 2017, 01:02:22 AM
Quote from: Ken B on December 05, 2017, 11:36:17 AM
Nonsense. This is what Florestan asked for
Did he get an organization as an answer? No, he got one named person.

He got "the environment, and the inertia of precedent" as an answer in posts by myself and Scarps, though depending on the progress of the discussion, they may not appear as linear responses.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 06, 2017, 03:05:47 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 06, 2017, 01:02:22 AM
"the environment, and the inertia of precedent"

Neither one, nor the other of these vague generalities is a person or an organization. What I asked for was a person or organization who/which hindered the career of a woman conductor. And I should have thought that anyone can infer that I wanted to be pointed out to actual, documented cases in which person X or organization Y hindered, by action taken or not taken, the career of the woman conductor Z. Simply expressing one's conservative views on the matter does not qualify by any stretch of the imagination.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on December 06, 2017, 03:47:53 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 06, 2017, 03:05:47 AM
Neither one, nor the other of these vague generalities is a person or an organization.

Very good.

Quote from: Florestan on December 06, 2017, 03:05:47 AMWhat I asked for was a person or organization who/which hindered the career of a woman conductor.

I know.  Your paradigm is too narrow;  you should guess at that, from your leading question.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 06, 2017, 03:57:52 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 06, 2017, 03:47:53 AM
Your paradigm is too narrow

Only in the sense of narrowing the matter down from general considerations to documented facts.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Ken B on December 06, 2017, 05:50:36 AM
According to some here Andrei, William Lloyd Garrison was responsible for slavery, because he was "part of the system".

You are demanding that people be treated as individuals and judged on their own actions. You should know that's not the way many here operate.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on December 06, 2017, 05:57:04 AM
Well, I'll consider the sarcasm to have refuted the concerns I raised, then.

Andrei, I apologize for having suggested that you do not have all the answers.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on December 06, 2017, 05:58:39 AM
Because, clearly, if I cannot point to a person or an organization, here and now, from my own experience, there is in fact no problem, and I am doing no more than calling for a witch hunt.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 06, 2017, 06:09:55 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 06, 2017, 05:58:39 AM
Because, clearly, if I cannot point to a person or an organization, here and now, from my own experience, there is in fact no problem, and I am doing no more than calling for a witch hunt.

Oh, but I didn't specify that as a condition.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 06, 2017, 06:12:14 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 06, 2017, 05:57:04 AM
Andrei, I apologize for having suggested that you do not have all the answers.

No need to apologize, you are absolutely right: in the case of my question, I have no answers at all.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: amw on December 06, 2017, 06:35:54 AM
One cannot explain trends involving large numbers of people without using class analysis. This also applies to things like institutionalised racism or sexism or whatever.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Ken B on December 06, 2017, 06:42:45 AM
Quote from: amw on December 06, 2017, 06:35:54 AM
One cannot explain trends involving large numbers of people without using class analysis. This also applies to things like institutionalised racism or sexism or whatever.
Even if that were true you cannot use "class analysis" to prove the guilt of a particular person for a particular charge. You need particular facts about that particular person.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 06, 2017, 06:53:58 AM
Quote from: Ken B on December 06, 2017, 06:42:45 AM
Even if that were true you cannot use "class analysis" to prove the guilt of a particular person for a particular charge.

Yes you can. I said it previously, this tactic was amply used by the communists, who concocted the theory of the "objective class ennemy": it doesn't matter that X did nothing unlawful; s/he belongs to the bourgeois class and as such is an objective ennemy of the proletariat; therefore, s/he must be either put to jail or bullied into ideological conformity and obedience.

It is mindboggling for me, frightening even, to see this type of "reasoning" employed here.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mirror Image on December 06, 2017, 06:57:20 AM
I can certainly see this happening again and very soon:

Quote from: Ken B on October 05, 2017, 10:48:38 AM
You don't get to make up facts even if your conclusion is right

I think I have had it with GMG. Sayonara.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Ken B on December 06, 2017, 06:58:22 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 06, 2017, 06:57:20 AM
I can certainly see this happening again and very soon:
You mean people making up facts? Yes, I can see that happening again too.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mirror Image on December 06, 2017, 07:00:24 AM
Quote from: Ken B on December 06, 2017, 06:58:22 AM
You mean people making up facts? Yes, I can see that happening again too.

Ummm...no. You getting upset and then announcing to the world that you're leaving. It's inevitable.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Brian on December 06, 2017, 07:11:50 AM
It's okay as long as we're just so wrong he can't resist coming back  8)
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mirror Image on December 06, 2017, 07:28:20 AM
Quote from: Brian on December 06, 2017, 07:11:50 AM
It's okay as long as we're just so wrong he can't resist coming back  8)

Hah!
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mahlerian on December 06, 2017, 08:32:21 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 06, 2017, 12:12:55 AM
There was no evidence whatsoever that has already been presented that Mariss Jansons, by his own actions, hindered the career of a woman conductor. Associating him with a perceived "regime system which supresses women voices" is no evidence at all; it is guilt by association which would be laugh out of any court (except, of course, the communist ones, as I said previously).

The argument given was not guilt by association.  It was to say that Jansons, by virtue of his position, is able to make or break careers, and his stated attitudes mean that he will be far less likely to help along the careers of women.  That doesn't count as hindrance?  Asking for the name of a specific woman who would have been a professional conductor but didn't become one due to Jansons' influence is a spurious argument that makes the line of inquiry that you opened up impossible to close.

Your argument, on the other hand, is guilt by association (this reminds you of communism, communism is bad, so this too is bad).

Quote from: Florestan on December 06, 2017, 12:12:55 AMFurthermore, it is preposterous, given that Jansons's recordings, far from supressing women voices, actually feature them. Ask Felicity Lott, Julia Hamari, Sarah Chang or Midori.

We were discussing women conductors, not instrumental performers.

Quote from: Florestan on December 06, 2017, 12:12:55 AMI asked "name individual X or organization Y", and then when individual X has been named, I asked for evidence regarding him. What conditions did I change, pray tell?

You asked for a name, and a name was provided.  In fact, the evidence for that name had already been presented in the discussion of his attitudes.  You are simply demanding more evidence when your initial conditions were already satisfied, without any acknowledgement that they were in fact satisfied.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Pat B on December 06, 2017, 09:29:50 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on December 06, 2017, 08:32:21 AM
It was to say that Jansons, by virtue of his position, is able to make or break careers, and his stated attitudes mean that he will be far less likely to help along the careers of women.

Aside from whether he individually helps women in their careers, his statement was directly discouraging to aspiring women conductors in general.

I don't remember how we segued from Levine to Jansons — their situations are not really comparable. I don't think Jansons's career is at immediate risk. But it would be nice to see his subsequent assurance of support put into visible action.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Ken B on December 06, 2017, 09:34:46 AM
Quote from: Pat B on December 06, 2017, 09:29:50 AM
Aside from whether he individually helps women in their careers, his statement was directly discouraging to aspiring women conductors in general.

I don't remember how we segued from Levine to Jansons 

Because the only thing worse than repeatedly committing statutory rape is having outdated attitudes.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 06, 2017, 09:46:36 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on December 06, 2017, 08:32:21 AM
Jansons, by virtue of his position, is able to make or break careers, and his stated attitudes mean that he will be far less likely to help along the careers of women.  That doesn't count as hindrance? 

Not by a long stretch of imagination. Now it's not even guilt by association anymore, it's guilt by "it might happen".  Boggles the mind, but by now I have accustomed myself to that.

QuoteYou asked for a name, and a name was provided.  In fact, the evidence for that name had already been presented in the discussion of his attitudes.

That evidence you speak about shows only, and solely, that Jansons holds conservative views on the matter. No evidence whatsoever, zilch, nada de nada, has been presented that he actually, factually and demonstrably hindered the career of any living woman conductor.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mahlerian on December 06, 2017, 09:51:38 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 06, 2017, 09:46:36 AMNot by a long stretch of imagination. Now it's not even guilt by association anymore, it's guilt by "it might happen".  Boggles the mind, but by now I have accustomed myself to that.

I'm not saying "it might happen," I'm saying that it very likely has happened.  It's like saying that Trump's "you can grab them by the p*****" only expresses a hypothetical of what he might possibly do in a given situation if it were to arise.  In both cases we're discussing a situation that has certainly come up, and in which the person in question's attitudes have been made explicit.

Also, as I said, it wasn't guilt by association before.  That was you making that argument.

Quote from: Florestan on December 06, 2017, 09:46:36 AMThat evidence you speak about shows only, and solely, that Jansons holds conservative views on the matter. No evidence whatsoever, zilch, nada de nada, has been presented that he actually, factually and demonstrably hindered the career of any living woman conductor.

As I said, you have asked for evidence which, by its nature, cannot exist.  It is not a reasonable standard of proof.

To turn it around, I want you to name the key and duration of the symphony Clara Schumann would have written had she not been discouraged by society from writing it.  If you can't do that, you have given no evidence that she wouldn't have written one, and I'll assume that it was not possible for her to have written one.

Because we are, in the vast majority of cases, discussing careers that never really happened, it is next to impossible to give the names of people specifically affected.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Ken B on December 06, 2017, 09:57:18 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 06, 2017, 09:46:36 AM
No evidence whatsoever, zilch, nada de nada, has been presented that he actually, factually and demonstrably hindered the career of any living woman conductor.

Can you prove he didn't? Until you interview every woman who is or was or might have been a conductor, you can't prove he didn't. Even if you do that it's only the first step, you will need to talk to every school admissions officer, every music director to ascertain Jansons didn't use his sway.

Can you prove he didn't? Can you? Can you?

John Oliver lays out the standard:
QuoteYou've given no evidence to show that it didn't happen.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: SurprisedByBeauty on December 06, 2017, 10:18:53 AM
Quote from: Ken B on December 06, 2017, 09:57:18 AM
Can you prove he didn't?


A negative can, by definition, not be proven - and you know it.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Ken B on December 06, 2017, 10:49:54 AM
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on December 06, 2017, 10:18:53 AM

A negative can, by definition, not be proven - and you know it.

I think you missed my point and my mordancy Jens. Look at the John Oliver quote. Proving a negative is now the standard demanded by some.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 06, 2017, 11:06:31 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on December 06, 2017, 09:51:38 AM
Because we are, in the vast majority of cases, discussing careers that never really happened

Thank you for proving my point: you (plural) don't actually discuss, nor are interested in discussing, facts ; you (plural) actually won't let any facts stand in your (plural) way.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mahlerian on December 06, 2017, 11:14:16 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 06, 2017, 11:06:31 AM
Thank you for proving my point: you (plural) don't actually discuss, nor are interested in discussing, facts ; you (plural) actually won't let any facts stand in your (plural) way.

We have been discussing facts.  You have ignored those facts and demanded a higher standard of evidence than it would be possible to provide.  I ask you again, what key was Clara Schumann's prospective symphony in?
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Ken B on December 06, 2017, 11:20:20 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on December 06, 2017, 11:14:16 AM
We have been discussing facts.  You have ignored those facts and demanded a higher standard of evidence than it would be possible to provide.  I ask you again, what key was Clara Schumann's prospective symphony in?
The key Johannes Brahms told her not to write it in.  ::)
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mahlerian on December 06, 2017, 11:29:29 AM
Quote from: Ken B on December 06, 2017, 11:20:20 AM
The key Johannes Brahms told her not to write it in.  ::)

That's not specific enough.  I need evidence.  It's never irrational to ask for that, right?
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Ken B on December 06, 2017, 11:39:45 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on December 06, 2017, 11:29:29 AM
That's not specific enough.  I need evidence.  It's never irrational to ask for that, right?
You have missed my point.
What evidence is their CS wanted to write a symphony and was discouraged from doing so by "society" even when she had the support and encouragement of composers like Brahms and Schumann? That's some powerful "society" influence! You are dealing in made up hypotheticals. And even if you had a letter from supporting all you imagine, you couldn't infer from it that some specific person was culpable.

Now if CS had gone to Simrock, and Simrock had said "I want no woman's symphony" then you'd have a complaint against ... Simrock. You wouldn't have a case against Simrock's barber for being "part of the system."
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: SurprisedByBeauty on December 06, 2017, 11:44:04 AM
Quote from: Ken B on December 06, 2017, 10:49:54 AM
I think you missed my point and my mordancy Jens. Look at the John Oliver quote. Proving a negative is now the standard demanded by some.

Sorry, yes... I got confused in the general flurry.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Pat B on December 06, 2017, 11:47:42 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 06, 2017, 11:06:31 AM
Thank you for proving my point: you (plural) don't actually discuss, nor are interested in discussing, facts ; you (plural) actually won't let any facts stand in your (plural) way.

Suppose famous conductor X said: "Women should not be conductors. I only accept male students and assistants." Suppose further that posters on this forum cannot provide the name of a specific woman who was rejected by conductor X. Should we then consider his position acceptable?

What if we can provide a name but cannot prove that her gender was the only reason she was rejected?

Obviously that hypothetical is more explicit than Jansons's statement, and to me would deserve a different response. I'm just trying to figure out whether the "I don't know the identities of a specific victim" defense depends on the nature of the statement.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mahlerian on December 06, 2017, 11:51:44 AM
Quote from: Ken B on December 06, 2017, 11:39:45 AM
You have missed my point.
What evidence is their CS wanted to write a symphony and was discouraged from doing so by "society" even when she had the support and encouragement of composers like Brahms and Schumann? That's some powerful "society" influence! You are dealing in made up hypotheticals. And even if you had a letter from supporting all you imagine, you couldn't infer from it that some specific person was culpable.

Exactly.  Now go back and apply all that to Florestan's argument.  We are discussing a situation in which the evidence that is being demanded cannot, by its nature, exist.

(We know that Clara Schumann felt discouraged from writing music as a woman because she told us so, by the way.)
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mahlerian on December 06, 2017, 11:57:55 AM
Quote from: Pat B on December 06, 2017, 11:47:42 AM
Suppose famous conductor X said: "Women should not be conductors. I only accept male students and assistants." Suppose further that posters on this forum cannot provide the name of a specific woman who was rejected by conductor X. Should we then consider his position acceptable?

What if we can provide a name but cannot prove that her gender was the only reason she was rejected?

Obviously that hypothetical is more explicit than Jansons's statement, and to me would deserve a different response. I'm just trying to figure out whether the "I don't know the identities of a specific victim" defense depends on the nature of the statement.

It is important to understand the conditions under which a hypothesis could be proven wrong.  I think that my and Scarpia's hypothesis could be proven wrong if we could find that, in spite of his views, Jansons has in fact been quite willing to take on assistant conductors who are women.

The vague nature of Florestan's argument makes it impossible to think of any condition which would satisfy it, though.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Ken B on December 06, 2017, 12:06:39 PM
Quote from: Pat B on December 06, 2017, 11:47:42 AM
Suppose famous conductor X said: "Women should not be conductors. I only accept male students and assistants." Suppose further that posters on this forum cannot provide the name of a specific woman who was rejected by conductor X. Should we then consider his position acceptable?

What if we can provide a name but cannot prove that her gender was the only reason she was rejected?

Obviously that hypothetical is more explicit than Jansons's statement, and to me would deserve a different response. I'm just trying to figure out whether the "I don't know the identities of a specific victim" defense depends on the nature of the statement.

Good point.

I think that hypothetical statement amounts to an admission (or a boast). After all, he is a conductor, he does accept students, he says he doesn't accept women. His statement is evidence of actions taken. 

This is very different from my friend Bob, who is store clerk, when he says "If I were to take on conducting students I wouldn't take any women." I don't think that statement is evidence Bob has actually discriminated against women conductors to prevent their advancement. Bob can't spell conductor and has never given a lesson.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mahlerian on December 06, 2017, 12:24:33 PM
Quote from: San Antonio on December 06, 2017, 12:07:13 PM
What about this statement by Jansons: "Every one of my female colleagues and every young woman wishing to become a conductor can be assured of my support, for we all work in pursuit of a common goal: to excite people for the art form we love so dearly – music."

The retraction may very well signify a change in perspective, and that would of course be a good thing.  It is unlikely to represent his views throughout his career, given what he said before he was called out on it.  What I meant was that we would need proof through his actions, in spite of the view implied by his earlier statements.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Pat B on December 06, 2017, 02:35:50 PM
Quote from: Ken B on December 06, 2017, 12:06:39 PM
Good point.

I think that hypothetical statement amounts to an admission (or a boast). After all, he is a conductor, he does accept students, he says he doesn't accept women. His statement is evidence of actions taken. 

This is very different from my friend Bob, who is store clerk, when he says "If I were to take on conducting students I wouldn't take any women." I don't think that statement is evidence Bob has actually discriminated against women conductors to prevent their advancement. Bob can't spell conductor and has never given a lesson.

Bob the Store Clerk, unlike Jansons, is not in a position to help or hinder aspiring conductors, but I think I understand your larger point.

If the only issue is whether discrimination occurred, Conductor X's statement is not actually evidence of actions taken: he could claim that the situation had never arisen. That doesn't make him okay to me, especially since his opinion might be the reason the situation had never arisen. Similarly, even if Jansons has not personally discriminated against women, I still don't like his "cup of tea" comment because of the messages it sends to women and to men. Jansons's clarification, if taken at face value, is nice, but it carries the whiff of having been written by the BRSO's attorney or publicist. I don't think we must equate Jansons to X, but I also don't think we must equate him to Conductor Y who did not say anything discouraging towards women.

I would like to believe the clarification (regardless of who wrote it) and hope that it will be put into action in some way.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: mc ukrneal on December 06, 2017, 04:21:03 PM
You are all missing the forest for the trees. Its like watching a train barrel down the tracks only to swerve off course and over the cliff.  I think I need a lollipop....
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 06, 2017, 06:07:17 PM
Let's get back to "Jimmy." Here's something I don't get.

When the Met and CSO started working with Levine in the 1970s, I think those sordid rumors were not very well established. So to a certain extent they could plead ignorance of the situation. This doesn't justify their later behavior (assuming the rumors are true), but it does go some way toward explaining why they stuck with him for so long.

What I don't get is why the Boston Symphony hired him as late as 2004. Surely they must have known what a risk they were taking? Why did they do it - were they just desperate to hire a "big name"? With that's orchestra's pedigree, that doesn't seem like a problem they would face.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 07, 2017, 12:02:53 AM
Quote from: Mahlerian on December 06, 2017, 12:24:33 PM
The retraction may very well signify a change in perspective, and that would of course be a good thing.  It is unlikely to represent his views throughout his career, given what he said before he was called out on it.  What I meant was that we would need proof through his actions, in spite of the view implied by his earlier statements.

So, what you basically say is that we don't need proof through his actions that he did hinder some woman's career, because his earlier view is proof in itself, yet we do need proof through his actions that he will not do it in the future, because his later statement is not proof in itself. Boggles the mind!!!!!! Boggles the mind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Boggles the mind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! God, help me preserve my sanity and temper!

Okay, I'm calm now.

What do we know for a fact? Two things.

1. Mariss Jansons expressed in an interview his conservative / outdated views on women conductors.
2. In a subsequent statement, he admitted to being "undiplomatic, unnecessary and counterproductive", he acknowledged that he was "not yet accustomed to seeing women on the conducting platform" and offered his unqualified and unconditional support to "[e]very one of my female colleagues and every young woman wishing to become a conductor".

That is all.

Some people, while freely acknowledging that there is not a single flesh-and-blood woman conductor whose career has been hindered by Jansons,  maintain à outrance that #1 above is evidence enough that he actually did hinder the careers of women conductors. This defies logic, tramples common sense under foot and represents the ultimate triumph of ideology over reason. Sad (and saddening) but true.

That being said, this is going to be my last post on the matter. I enjoy fighting nonsense, but only up to a limit, and it's been crossed. See you in other threads.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: ritter on December 07, 2017, 12:25:10 AM
This all reminds me of the polemic in Spain some years ago about whether there should or should not be female bullfighters (which, of course, was contaminated by the controversy surrounding bullfighting per se).

Usually, these discussions--when aimed at one particular person or organization--do not lead anywhere, and in the case at hand, (fortunately) the steady normalization of women on the podium continues, to the benefit of all.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on December 07, 2017, 01:08:42 AM
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 06, 2017, 06:07:17 PM
Let's get back to "Jimmy." Here's something I don't get.

When the Met and CSO started working with Levine in the 1970s, I think those sordid rumors were not very well established. So to a certain extent they could plead ignorance of the situation. This doesn't justify their later behavior (assuming the rumors are true), but it does go some way toward explaining why they stuck with him for so long.

What I don't get is why the Boston Symphony hired him as late as 2004. Surely they must have known what a risk they were taking?

I didn't get it, partly for that reason, and partly because here was a guy who needed to treat his health issues gingerly, now being accorded two major full-time musical positions.  The end of Levine "commuting" between Lincoln Center and Huntington Avenue was only a matter of time.

Probably the current environmental fetish for those few Big Names accounts for it.  But Boston, of all places, might have brought in a bright young talent to bring new blood to the fore.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: SurprisedByBeauty on December 07, 2017, 01:23:18 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 07, 2017, 01:08:42 AM
I didn't get it, partly for that reason, and partly because here was a guy who needed to treat his health issues gingerly, now being accorded two major full-time musical positions.  The end of Levine "commuting" between Lincoln Center and Huntington Avenue was only a matter of time.

Probably the current environmental fetish for those few Big Names accounts for it.  But Boston, of all places, might have brought in a bright young talent to bring new blood to the fore.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 07, 2017, 01:08:42 AM
I didn't get it, partly for that reason, and partly because here was a guy who needed to treat his health issues gingerly, now being accorded two major full-time musical positions.  The end of Levine "commuting" between Lincoln Center and Huntington Avenue was only a matter of time.

Probably the current environmental fetish for those few Big Names accounts for it.  But Boston, of all places, might have brought in a bright young talent to bring new blood to the fore.

Boston desperately needed a big-name conductor and at the time -- there wasn't one on the market at the time and Levine was considered either "the thing itself" or at least a great "bridge conductor".

As per: How could they have hired him: The Boston Symphony said that before hiring James Levine it had a background check done "with a criminal screening and an analysis of any possible civil claims, as well as numerous conversations with music professionals across the country" that "did not reveal cause for concern." (as per Michael Cooper, NYT)

Meanwhile Munich musicians speak of James Levine having been required to wear an ankle monitor around the time when he became MD of the Munich Phil... as if it was a well-known fact.
I have not read anything about this and the musicians I have asked about it didn't see such a device. Nor does it make sense: What's the point of an ankle monitor if you can still travel back and forth across continents...
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mahlerian on December 07, 2017, 04:14:58 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 07, 2017, 12:02:53 AMSome people, while freely acknowledging that there is not a single flesh-and-blood woman conductor whose career has been hindered by Jansons,  maintain à outrance that #1 above is evidence enough that he actually did hinder the careers of women conductors. This defies logic, tramples common sense under foot and represents the ultimate triumph of ideology over reason. Sad (and saddening) but true.

What ideology?  I'll defer to you here.

Quote from: Florestan on December 04, 2017, 10:38:05 AM
People usually use ad hominem when their stock of rational arguments is depleted, but why you felt the need to use it beats me.

I said that Jansons can be assumed to have been in a position to affect the careers of women, simply because of his being the head of a major orchestra for so long.  The fact that he expressed his disdain for women conductors openly shows his feelings about the matter, and it is extremely likely that, consciously or not, he did not support some woman conductor(s) as he would have some men.  That sort of support or lack thereof is very important in building a career, and could be said to be a hindrance.

If this were a situation in which a null result (ie a lack of knowledge of women who have been thus affected) is unexpected, then that result, as we have, would be significant.  But this is a situation in which that result is the expected one whichever the case may be.  I am not saying that the lack of such knowledge is proof that Jansons misused his position in this way, but rather that it cannot be used as proof in either direction, because it is equally expected either way.

We know how he felt because he said so.  You suggest that we believe either that:

A) Jansons, in spite of his stature, was never in a position to affect the career of a woman conductor positively or negatively.

B) Jansons, in spite of his expressed prejudices, always affected the career of every woman conductor in a positive way (or at least as often as he did with men)

I think that either of these is unlikely, and instead of ridiculing me for being illogical, you should actually argue for one or both of these in order to support your own point.  Maybe I'll be convinced.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Florestan on December 07, 2017, 04:59:33 AM
I promised to stay out, but I'll make (only) one exception to address this.

Quote from: Mahlerian on December 07, 2017, 04:14:58 AM
You suggest that we believe either that:

A) Jansons, in spite of his stature, was never in a position to affect the career of a woman conductor positively or negatively.

B) Jansons, in spite of his expressed prejudices, always affected the career of every woman conductor in a positive way (or at least as often as he did with men)

I suggest neither one, nor the other. You twist my argument into what I never maintained.

What I suggest is that, although Jansons indeed was and still is in a position to affect the career of a woman conductor positively or negatively, all factual evidence (better said, the conspicuous lack thereof) points to the fact that he actually never did that. My God, how can it be so difficult to grasp the common sense that being in a position to do something and actually doing it are two different things altogether?

What you suggest, instead, is that we believe either that

1) Jansons did affect negatively the career of a woman conductor not simply by the views he expressed, or the position he holds, but by action he personally took (eg, causing her dismissal) or he did not took (eg, not hiring her)

or

2) Jansons having expressed negative views about women conductors, and having the power to affect negatively their careers, is in itself equivalent to, and evidence for, having actually hindered their careers.

I reject (2) as illogical and undefensible (it is equivalent to accusing me of producing a car crash with the intention of killing the other driver, and offering as evidence the fact that when driving I routinely curse other drivers and am certainly in a position to produce a car crash) and I ask for (1) to be proved. Heck, if it happened indeed, it wouldn't be difficult to find some newspaper report about it: it'd have made headlines all over the world, actually.

That's it. Now I have really reached the limit of my patience. Over and out for good.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mahlerian on December 07, 2017, 05:14:53 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 07, 2017, 04:59:33 AMI suggest neither one, nor the other. You twist my argument into what I never maintained.

I was simply stating the conditions that would need to be true in order for your argument to be valid.  I am aware that you have not advanced either position.  You should, though, if you want to save your argument.

Quote from: Florestan on December 07, 2017, 04:59:33 AMWhat I suggest is that, although Jansons indeed was and still is in a position to affect the career of a woman conductor positively or negatively, all factual evidence (better said, the conspicuous lack thereof) points to the fact that he actually never did that.

As I said before, this is a case in which a lack of evidence provides no indication one way or the other, because it would be expected either way.

Quote from: Florestan on December 07, 2017, 04:59:33 AMWhat you suggest, instead, is that we believe either that

1) Jansons did affect negatively the career of a woman conductor not simply by the views he expressed, or the position he holds, but by action he personally took (eg, causing her dismissal) or he did not took (eg, not hiring her)

or

2) Jansons having expressed negative views about women conductors, and having the power to affect negatively their careers, is in itself equivalent to, and evidence for, having actually hindered their careers.

I reject (2) as illogical and undefensible (it is equivalent to accusing me of producing a car crash with the intention of killing the other driver, and offering as evidence the fact that when driving I routinely curse other drivers and am certainly in a position to produce a car crash) and I ask for (1) to be proved. Heck, if it happened indeed, it wouldn't be difficult to find some newspaper report about it: it'd have made headlines all over the world, actually.

That's it. Now I have really reached the limit of my patience. Over and out for good.

2) is certainly idiotic, and if you had read my posts, you would know that it was not what I was suggesting.  As for 1), you are not casting the net wide enough.  Head conductors are in a position to do a good deal of work in regards to the careers of potential talent.  They do so on a regular basis.

As for your contention that if he had discriminated against someone on the basis of their gender, that it would be widely known and reported, I should think not.  When was the last time someone reported that a symphony orchestra had decided not to hire X well-known or especially unknown conductor for an empty slot in their schedule?  Imagine the (worldwide) headline:

Marin Alsop Not Chosen to Conduct July 15 at Tanglewood

Why would anyone report that instead of:

François-Xavier Roth to Conduct July 15 at Tanglewood

It would require everyone to assume that it would have been Alsop if not for the existence of Roth as well as that Alsop's gender was the reason for the preference, and that would indeed be illogical.  That doesn't mean that a consistent pattern of ignoring women conductors can't occur, even if it isn't noticed (which isn't difficult, because the profession is overwhelmingly male).
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: ritter on December 07, 2017, 05:20:48 AM
Flogging...dead...horse...

Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on December 07, 2017, 08:25:10 AM
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on December 07, 2017, 01:23:18 AM
Boston desperately needed a big-name conductor and at the time -- there wasn't one on the market at the time and Levine was considered either "the thing itself" or at least a great "bridge conductor".

As per: How could they have hired him: The Boston Symphony said that before hiring James Levine it had a background check done "with a criminal screening and an analysis of any possible civil claims, as well as numerous conversations with music professionals across the country" that "did not reveal cause for concern." (as per Michael Cooper, NYT)

Aye, you're right, of course (although the disclaimer of "any possible civil claims" was glibly overconfident);  nor will I maintain that this is the first I have known of these arguments.

I suppose where I was headed is, these are the actions and this the behavior of a fully corporatized musical organization:  they made a big-money decision, and they the ticked the legal/compliance boxes which they needed to tick.

Where giving the chance to a young (unlike Levine), US (unlike Nelsons) conductor would have been a bolder investment in this very country's artistic life, and would have been the act of artistry over Corporate Boardroom-dom.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Pat B on December 07, 2017, 08:33:45 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 07, 2017, 08:25:10 AM
they the icked the legal/compliance boxes which they needed to ick.

FIFY
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on December 07, 2017, 08:44:33 AM
Eeeewww
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on December 07, 2017, 08:46:05 AM
Ken, I have meant to ask forever:  "Give a man a fire and he is warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he is warm for life." Is that your'n, or is there some other source to attribute it to?
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 07, 2017, 08:51:17 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 07, 2017, 08:44:33 AM
Eeeewww

The contrast between Levine's vast self-discipline and incredible capacity for work in his professional life, and his totally messed-up private life, is fascinating and would make for a great movie, novel or TV miniseries.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: SurprisedByBeauty on December 07, 2017, 08:57:50 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 07, 2017, 08:25:10 AM
Where giving the chance to a young (unlike Levine), US (unlike Nelsons) conductor would have been a bolder investment in this very country's artistic life, and would have been the act of artistry over Corporate Boardroom-dom.

Dear Karl - I don't know what it is with the "American Conductor" thingy. Well, I have a suspicion. But I'd never think: Gosh, I wish the XYZ Philharmonic finally gets a GERMAN [insert nationality of location of orchestra] conductor.

Is it still that American classical music feels forcefully attached to the old European umbilical cord? A desire for (still) greater emancipation? I reckon with some -- but not likely you -- it's jingoism. So where there's such odd overlap, I'm genuinely interested.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: SurprisedByBeauty on December 07, 2017, 09:03:07 AM
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 07, 2017, 08:51:17 AM
The contrast between Levine's vast self-discipline and incredible capacity for work in his professional life, and his totally messed-up private life, is fascinating and would make for a great movie, novel or TV miniseries.

What do you do, if you haven't the emotional or sexual capacity for women or, in fact, independent, mature adults. It has got to suck. For almost every kink there's a semi-accepted outlet, these days... but if that's your inclination, you really have to kill something within you -- and totally, not just mostly. For all the overdue empathy for all the victims, I have to say: I do feel for the perps in some of these cases.

(There are hard limits to my empathy, I should point out, in case someone wanted to turn wilfully misinterpret this and fashion it into an attack on me.)
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: North Star on December 07, 2017, 09:16:24 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 07, 2017, 08:46:05 AM
Ken, I have meant to ask forever:  "Give a man a fire and he is warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he is warm for life." Is that your'n, or is there some other source to attribute it to?
It's Terry Pratchett.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 07, 2017, 09:30:28 AM
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on December 07, 2017, 08:57:50 AM
Dear Karl - I don't know what it is with the "American Conductor" thingy. Well, I have a suspicion. But I'd never think: Gosh, I wish the XYZ Philharmonic finally gets a GERMAN [insert nationality of location of orchestra] conductor.

Is it still that American classical music feels forcefully attached to the old European umbilical cord? A desire for (still) greater emancipation? I reckon with some -- but not likely you -- it's jingoism. So where there's such odd overlap, I'm genuinely interested.

In my case, it's really just a wish that more of our national music would get played by our major orchestras. Not so much cutting the "European umbilical cord" as following Europe's lead. Czechs play Czech music, Finns play Finnish music, Hungarians play Hungarian music, and so on. We should do likewise.

The "American conductor" wouldn't even have to be a US citizen but someone with an interest in promoting our local music. Look at how the Australian Charles Mackerras promoted Czech music, and the German-born American Andre Previn promoted English music. Someone like Carlos Kalmar (Uruguayan-Austrian but conducts a lot of American music) is a good living example.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: mc ukrneal on December 07, 2017, 09:32:05 AM
Quote from: North Star on December 07, 2017, 09:16:24 AM
It's Terry Pratchett.
They should watch Hogfather - lots more of that type of quote!
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on December 07, 2017, 10:21:31 AM
Quote from: North Star on December 07, 2017, 09:16:24 AM
It's Terry Pratchett.

Thanks for the Enlightenment!

Quote from: mc ukrneal on December 07, 2017, 09:32:05 AM
They should watch Hogfather - lots more of that type of quote!

Thanks for the suggestion!
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: SurprisedByBeauty on December 07, 2017, 10:29:21 AM
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 07, 2017, 09:30:28 AM
. Someone like Carlos Kalmar (Uruguayan-Austrian but conducts a lot of American music) is a good living example.

For me, that's Robertson, whom I think very, very highly of. Or Slatkin, if he were a more inspiring conductor. Or Alsop, who's like Slatkin to me.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Pat B on December 07, 2017, 11:00:10 AM
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on December 07, 2017, 08:57:50 AM
Dear Karl - I don't know what it is with the "American Conductor" thingy. Well, I have a suspicion. But I'd never think: Gosh, I wish the XYZ Philharmonic finally gets a GERMAN [insert nationality of location of orchestra] conductor.

Is it still that American classical music feels forcefully attached to the old European umbilical cord? A desire for (still) greater emancipation? I reckon with some -- but not likely you -- it's jingoism. So where there's such odd overlap, I'm genuinely interested.

For me, there was a time when it made sense for American orchestras to give slight preference to American conductors, mostly as a means to combat the stigma. I think that time has probably passed.

It's hard to fault the BSO for getting Nelsons. He was already a big name and he was rising fast.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on December 07, 2017, 11:20:43 AM
Quote from: Pat B on December 07, 2017, 11:00:10 AM
For me, there was a time when it made sense for American orchestras to give slight preference to American conductors, mostly as a means to combat the stigma. I think that time has probably passed.

It's hard to fault the BSO for getting Nelsons. He was already a big name and he was rising fast.

I have no argument with any point here.

I suppose my query is (and if this obviously comes from a composer in a broadly similar situation, I apologize in advance) where do the American conductors who want to "come up the ranks" go?

Suppose Lenny and Jimmy were of this generation:  where would they get their "break"?

Nelsons was rising fast.  Morlot is rising at a reasonable pace.  God knows Dudamel rose fast.  And there has been ample opportunity for them here in the US.

How nice for them all.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 07, 2017, 11:44:10 AM
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on December 07, 2017, 10:29:21 AM
For me, that's Robertson, whom I think very, very highly of. Or Slatkin, if he were a more inspiring conductor. Or Alsop, who's like Slatkin to me.

All good examples. I would add Alan Gilbert and Kent Nagano.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: SurprisedByBeauty on December 07, 2017, 12:45:10 PM
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 07, 2017, 11:44:10 AM
All good examples. I would add Alan Gilbert and Kent Nagano.

Absolutely. And while Nagano has technical issues, I'd rank him well above the technically more accomplished Alsop and Slatkin. But his career's been mostly European/Canadian. And Alan Gilbert I've come to think the world of! Wonderful programmer and excellent conductor and superb rehearser. He's probably my American No.1; Robertson having slipped a little, because he never got the big move while he was still really hot. And now he's a tad on the seasoned side.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: André on December 07, 2017, 12:49:39 PM
Nagano's contract in Montreal will not be renewed, ending sometime in 2018 IIRC. He'll be free, but not quite: he still has lots of stuff going on in Europe.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Pat B on December 07, 2017, 12:51:05 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 07, 2017, 11:20:43 AM
I suppose my query is (and if this obviously comes from a composer in a broadly similar situation, I apologize in advance) where do the American conductors who want to "come up the ranks" go?

Top positions at smaller orchestras and/or assistant positions. For most, the going will be slower than it was for Nelsons, but that's true for Latvians too.

Regardless of nationality, I would like to see an end to the preference for ultra-established conductors that had U.S. orchestras seemingly trading the likes of Muti and Maazel among themselves — or bringing in Levine.

AFAICT there are fewer formal positions for composers which makes it tougher. No apology necessary anyway.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Pat B on December 07, 2017, 01:55:44 PM
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on December 07, 2017, 12:45:10 PM
Robertson having slipped a little, because he never got the big move while he was still really hot. And now he's a tad on the seasoned side.

I haven't heard his work, but I've heard good things about him. For a while, the big American orchestras mostly wanted the usual suspects from the heyday of recording, now they want youngsters. There was an entire generation that was mostly bypassed (with a few exceptions — Salonen, Welser-Möst, Van Zweden). If "a tad on the seasoned side" is his biggest flaw then I hope he gets a shot.

Same for Spano.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on December 08, 2017, 04:36:58 AM
Quote from: Pat B on December 07, 2017, 12:51:05 PM
AFAICT there are fewer formal positions for composers which makes it tougher.

Aye.  Part of that problem, too, is an environment in which Levine and Dudamel are paid as if they were the CEO of an S&P 500 company.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mandryka on December 09, 2017, 06:47:39 AM
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on December 07, 2017, 09:03:07 AM
What do you do, . . . for . . . mature adults. It has got to suck. ... but if that's your inclination, you really have to kill something within you -- and totally, not just mostly. For all the overdue empathy for all the victims, I have to say: I do feel for the perps in some of these cases.



Yes, I agree with this.
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: Omicron9 on December 11, 2017, 07:34:52 AM
Quote from: Parsifal on December 04, 2017, 07:54:14 AM
...snip....I don't think that artists are generally good people. Mostly they are assholes and their primary value is the scrawls they put on the page. ....snip

Wow.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Omicron9 on December 11, 2017, 07:38:56 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 04, 2017, 08:34:48 AM
...snip....Anyway, at the end of the day, for me, the beauty of art triumphs over anything that happens on this earth.

^^^ This.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on December 11, 2017, 08:32:42 AM
Quote from: Omicron9 on December 11, 2017, 07:34:52 AM
Wow.

Aye. Another post for me not to take personally  8)
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Omicron9 on December 11, 2017, 09:42:37 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 11, 2017, 08:32:42 AM
Aye. Another post for me not to take personally  8)

+1.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: anothername on December 11, 2017, 08:28:27 PM
Quote from: geralmar on December 11, 2017, 08:16:01 PM
Shouldn't we be discussing James Levine?  He is all over the news (at least in the U.S.) now.
You mean that he is cleared .
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Pat B on December 12, 2017, 07:35:48 AM
Quote from: anothername on December 11, 2017, 08:28:27 PM
You mean that he is cleared .

"Will not face criminal charges" is not the same thing as "cleared."
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Mirror Image on December 12, 2017, 07:47:35 AM
Quote from: Pat B on December 12, 2017, 07:35:48 AM
"Will not face criminal charges" is not the same thing as "cleared."

Indeed. The investigation is still pending.
Title: Re: NYT Reports Levine Accusation
Post by: Baron Scarpia on December 15, 2017, 11:20:06 AM
Quote...snip....I don't think that artists are generally good people. Mostly they are assholes and their primary value is the scrawls they put on the page. ....snip

Quote from: Omicron9 on December 11, 2017, 07:34:52 AM
Wow.

The claim is not that being an artist makes you a bad person, but that creating a beautiful work of art is not evidence that the artist is a good person. Those who attain positions of great prestige, such as Levine, often owe their success to Machiavellian maneuvering as much as to talent.


Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on December 16, 2017, 05:49:24 AM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on December 15, 2017, 11:20:06 AM
The claim is not that being an artist makes you a bad person, but that creating a beautiful work of art is not evidence that the artist is a good person.

That is the plain truth.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: SurprisedByBeauty on December 16, 2017, 10:37:43 AM

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRMEol6VoAAOKxc.jpg)

There are rumors which are crippling
It seems he did some fiddling -
On the other hand he sounds sublime:
Tricky business - James Levine. (https://twitter.com/ClassicalCritic/status/942101844142080000)
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: SurprisedByBeauty on December 21, 2017, 06:05:37 PM


(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRnn-E0W0AEQ_bm.jpg) (https://twitter.com/ClassicalCritic/status/944040705772654592)

(I find the use of the non-word "impacted" highly offensive.)
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: vandermolen on December 22, 2017, 12:54:30 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 16, 2017, 05:49:24 AM
That is the plain truth.
+1
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on December 24, 2017, 09:12:54 AM
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on December 21, 2017, 06:05:37 PM

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRnn-E0W0AEQ_bm.jpg) (https://twitter.com/ClassicalCritic/status/944040705772654592)

(I find the use of the non-word "impacted" highly offensive.)

That horse is long out of the barn, too.  Just saying.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Archaic Torso of Apollo on January 02, 2018, 11:22:08 AM
Hurwitz has posted an editorial on this topic.

https://www.classicstoday.com/editorial-sexual-shenanigans-classical-musicians-recordings/

A couple of quick reax from me:

1. "Anyway, I'm not too worried about classical music. Granted, it's worse than pop in some ways—not because classical artists are any more disgusting, but because they are often much more pretentious, and certainly more sanctimonious"

I totally disagree with this. Pop musicians are often ridiculously pretentious, sanctimonious, and all-around narcissistic. All the classical musicians I have met were down-to-earth, relatable people. Mind you, things might be different for "stars," but even then I doubt it.

2. "Still, I believe the true reason for the disposability of even major artists today is classical music's dirtiest secret, one so shocking that few dare utter it. Here it is: None of these people matter. After all the hype, the publicity, the PR bubbles touting their uniqueness, they are still playing the same music as their colleagues, any one of whom is ready, willing, and able to replace them on a moment's notice"

I do think he has a point here.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Crudblud on January 03, 2018, 06:16:32 AM
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on January 02, 2018, 11:22:08 AM
2. "Still, I believe the true reason for the disposability of even major artists today is classical music's dirtiest secret, one so shocking that few dare utter it. Here it is: None of these people matter. After all the hype, the publicity, the PR bubbles touting their uniqueness, they are still playing the same music as their colleagues, any one of whom is ready, willing, and able to replace them on a moment's notice"

I do think he has a point here.

It seems to be true. Standards are better than they used to be, which means you get what you pay for in a live performance or recording more often than not, but the other side of that is sanitisation—what we gain in reliability we lose in variety. There are no Mengelbergs or Scherchens or Klemperers or even Bernsteins out there any more, what we have instead is a lot of very good but highly similar talents which, were it not for their having different names and faces, you might barely be able to pick and choose between. When there is such consistency, such uniformity intra- and inter- all these conductors it makes me think that perhaps they're preparing the way for automation, the whole thing becoming so homogeneous that it can safely be handed over to AI. Maybe that would eventually encourage a reassertion of belief in the importance of the individual talent, but who knows? Most of us are content to have things the same way every time, possibly because most of our listening time is not in concert but at home, with a captured moment that is exactly and absolutely recreated in every detail each time we hit the play button. The live experience may be under some pressure to play straight to the expectation that this is natural, and so a certain amount of artificiality must be exercised in order to please the audience, which in turn reinforces the expectation. There is something of an assembly line or fast food feel to it, every Barbie doll, every Big Mac, every Beethoven symphony the same, and that's how we like it.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on January 03, 2018, 06:23:47 AM
Quote from: Crudblud on January 03, 2018, 06:16:32 AM
It seems to be true. Standards are better than they used to be, which means you get what you pay for in a live performance or recording more often than not, but the other side of that is sanitisation—what we gain in reliability we lose in variety. There are no Mengelbergs or Scherchens or Klemperers or even Bernsteins out there any more, what we have instead is a lot of very good but highly similar talents which, were it not for their having different names and faces, you might barely be able to pick and choose between. When there is such consistency, such uniformity intra- and inter- all these conductors it makes me think that perhaps they're preparing the way for automation, the whole thing becoming so homogeneous that it can safely be handed over to AI. Maybe that would eventually encourage a reassertion of belief in the importance of the individual talent, but who knows? Most of us are content to have things the same way every time, possibly because most of our listening time is not in concert but at home, with a captured moment that is exactly and absolutely recreated in every detail each time we hit the play button. The live experience may be under some pressure to play straight to the expectation that this is natural, and so a certain amount of artificiality must be exercised in order to please the audience, which in turn reinforces the expectation. There is something of an assembly line or fast food feel to it, every Barbie doll, every Big Mac, every Beethoven symphony the same, and that's how we like it.

Thought-provoking.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: André on January 03, 2018, 06:54:09 AM
I agree with the notion of interchangeability between conductors nowadays. Beside répertoire preferences it's hard to distinguish the work of one vs the other (Petrenko, Alsop, Nézet-Séguin, Gilbert: all very proficient and reliable, but short on daring and inquisitiveness).

I don't agree at all with the AI bit, though. What keeps me returning to a work I like is precisely the alternate viewpoints, the notion that there is still something different and thought-provoking to a work that hasn't been said before. Therefore the need to acquire different versions of favourite works. And I think that's precisely what feeds the reissue industry, mining as it does the riches of a time when interpretive individuality was valued and rewarded.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Baron Scarpia on January 03, 2018, 06:56:53 AM
Quote from: Crudblud on January 03, 2018, 06:16:32 AM
It seems to be true. Standards are better than they used to be, which means you get what you pay for in a live performance or recording more often than not, but the other side of that is sanitisation—what we gain in reliability we lose in variety. There are no Mengelbergs or Scherchens or Klemperers or even Bernsteins out there any more, what we have instead is a lot of very good but highly similar talents which, were it not for their having different names and faces, you might barely be able to pick and choose between. When there is such consistency, such uniformity intra- and inter- all these conductors it makes me think that perhaps they're preparing the way for automation, the whole thing becoming so homogeneous that it can safely be handed over to AI. Maybe that would eventually encourage a reassertion of belief in the importance of the individual talent, but who knows? Most of us are content to have things the same way every time, possibly because most of our listening time is not in concert but at home, with a captured moment that is exactly and absolutely recreated in every detail each time we hit the play button. The live experience may be under some pressure to play straight to the expectation that this is natural, and so a certain amount of artificiality must be exercised in order to please the audience, which in turn reinforces the expectation. There is something of an assembly line or fast food feel to it, every Barbie doll, every Big Mac, every Beethoven symphony the same, and that's how we like it.

Certainly there is much more uniformity in standard performance, and a bias towards more energetic, crisp performance. I find myself with very little curiosity about new recordings, unless the repertoire is new to me. Mostly I find myself interested in re-release of very old recordings from forgotten artists which present the possibility of something different. The historical informed movement is the only area where I regularly find new performance ideas that interest me.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Crudblud on January 03, 2018, 07:22:46 AM
Quote from: André on January 03, 2018, 06:54:09 AM
I don't agree at all with the AI bit, though. What keeps me returning to a work I like is precisely the alternate viewpoints, the notion that there is still something different and thought-provoking to a work that hasn't been said before. Therefore the need to acquire different versions of favourite works. And I think that's precisely what feeds the reissue industry, mining as it does the riches of a time when interpretive individuality was valued and rewarded.
I mostly intended that as a joke. I think the AI/robotics craze means we are going to see a period of automation for automation's sake in many different fields, but I don't think it would be sustainable in music for any great length of time, with or without a counter-push for greater individuality of interpretation.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on January 03, 2018, 08:31:10 AM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on January 03, 2018, 06:56:53 AM
Certainly there is much more uniformity in standard performance, and a bias towards more energetic, crisp performance. I find myself with very little curiosity about new recordings, unless the repertoire is new to me. Mostly I find myself interested in re-release of very old recordings from forgotten artists which present the possibility of something different. The historical informed movement is the only area where I regularly find new performance ideas that interest me.

I can certainly see all of that.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Baron Scarpia on January 03, 2018, 08:44:36 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 03, 2018, 08:31:10 AM
I can certainly see all of that.

With the death of Harnoncourt (a great favorite of mine) I think the epoch of the lunatic conductor has drawn to a close. :(
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Todd on January 03, 2018, 09:03:21 AM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on January 03, 2018, 08:44:36 AM
With the death of Harnoncourt (a great favorite of mine) I think the epoch of the lunatic conductor has drawn to a close. :(

Teodor Currentzis?
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Daverz on January 03, 2018, 12:44:41 PM
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on January 02, 2018, 11:22:08 AM
Hurwitz has posted an editorial on this topic.

https://www.classicstoday.com/editorial-sexual-shenanigans-classical-musicians-recordings/

He lost when he brought up Goosens.  Some people are still confused about the difference between a "sex scandal" and sexual abuse.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Baron Scarpia on January 03, 2018, 01:13:20 PM
Quote from: Daverz on January 03, 2018, 12:44:41 PM
He lost when he brought up Goosens.  Some people are still confused about the difference between a "sex scandal" and sexual abuse.

My lord, Hurwitz is despicable. A writer who conflates a "sexual peccadillo" with felony sexual assault on a minor deserves to loose his career, IMO.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Ken B on January 03, 2018, 01:52:35 PM
This just in: Hurwitz clueless.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on January 04, 2018, 04:59:45 AM
Quote from: Ken B on January 03, 2018, 01:52:35 PM
This just in: Hurwitz clueless.

Man, did I need that laugh!  Blessings upon your head.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Cato on January 04, 2018, 07:52:19 AM
From today's Wall Street Journal by Terry Teachout:

Quote First James Levine, then Charles Dutoit and Peter Martins : The world of high art continues to be rocked by accusations of sexual misconduct by major figures, and no one doubts that more are on the way. The case of Mr. Levine, however, remains at the front of the queue, with two of his most notable critical admirers, Alex Ross of the New Yorker and Anthony Tommasini of the New York Times, having gone so far as to apologize for previously defending him as the victim of unfounded gossip.

Now what? Few doubt that Mr. Levine's performing career is over, regardless of whether he is in legal jeopardy. But what of his artistic legacy? Will his musical achievements be forgotten as a result of his disgrace? Not only has he recorded extensively for the past four decades, but audio and video recordings of his broadcast performances with the Met continue to be widely available. Will this continue to be true—and should it? Or is Mr. Levine's work destined to vanish into the memory hole?

We will, I feel certain, be a long time in sorting out the wider implications of the Levine scandal. Just before Christmas Mark Swed made a preliminary but surprisingly mild attempt to do so in a Los Angeles Times "Critic's Notebook" essay whose operative passage read as follows: "The question is not whether the bad outweighs the good...but whether the bad destroys the good. Levine has left us with a lot that matters." Mr. Tommasini, writing in the New York Times, made a similar point in a similar way when he mentioned that he owns two boxed sets of Mr. Levine's opera recordings, and that his personal response to the scandal will be "to move them out of my living room." To be sure, extreme caution is needed in weighing Mr. Levine's achievements against his conduct, not least because the charges against him remain unproved. But such rhetorical mildness inevitably smacks of temporizing. Stronger words are needed, and a historical comparison—one of the utmost relevance—may help to fill in the blanks.

The headline of Mr. Swed's essay refers to "the age-old debate of separating the art from the artist." This is the heart of the matter: It is mostly taken for granted by aesthetes that the creative achievements of a morally flawed artist can and should be judged separately from his offstage conduct. (Two words: Pablo Picasso. ) According to William Faulkner, "If a writer has to rob his mother, he will not hesitate; the 'Ode on a Grecian Urn' is worth any number of old ladies."

Laymen have always been understandably uncomfortable with this belief, for the very good reason that it encourages us to treat great artists as privileged creatures inhabiting a moral realm above and beyond that of the rest of us. For me, Faulkner's oft-quoted apothegm is at the very least arguable—but with one essential caveat: No matter how beautiful or profound the results may be, the artist who robs his mother should do time for it. He must be subject to the inexorable operation of the moral law.

Consider the case of Herbert von Karajan. He was one of the greatest orchestral conductors of the 20th century. He was also in his youth a member of the Nazi party, which he joined in 1933 to further his career. How should that affect our feelings about his work? Karajan took part in the Allied "denazification" process after World War II, and was authorized to resume his conducting career. But when his Nazi past was rediscovered by reporters in the '50s, it became a permanent part of his legacy, prominently mentioned in his obituaries and recalled whenever he is discussed today.

All this, it seems to me, is just as it should be. I love many of Karajan's recordings and listen to them often—but I also believe that his party membership should forevermore be a blood-red stain on his reputation. He deserves to pay that price for the opportunism of his youth.

If any of James Levine's recordings are good enough to survive him, I'm fine with that. I don't think they should be removed from circulation, or that his name should be scrubbed from the Met's website. But if it should eventually be proved that he abused teenage boys, then that foul fact, over and above whatever punishment the law may prescribe, should also be remembered to the end of time, and cited unequivocally whenever his name is mentioned. Only then will Mr. Levine, like Karajan before him, earn the privilege of having his art judged apart from his personal conduct.


See:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/seeing-a-legacy-whole-1515015239 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/seeing-a-legacy-whole-1515015239)
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on January 04, 2018, 07:54:26 AM
Good.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Baron Scarpia on January 04, 2018, 08:17:07 AM
Quote from: Cato on January 04, 2018, 07:52:19 AM
From today's Wall Street Journal by Terry Teachout:

See:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/seeing-a-legacy-whole-1515015239 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/seeing-a-legacy-whole-1515015239)

I generally agree. I don't think the work of artists found guilty of abuse should be suppressed. Among other injustices, that would be suppressing the work of those who suffered the abuse as a condition of participating in the artistic enterprise. The priority is protecting people from the abuser, so the abuser should be removed from a position of power immediately, without regard to any loss of future artistic output or revenue. Levine should have been thrown out and turned over to the authorities, and some other conductor should have had the privilege of leading the Metropolitan Opera and making great performances all those years.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Brian on March 02, 2018, 12:04:04 PM
The Boston Globe has a new investigation with interviews of 5-6 James Levine colleagues from his early days as a student in the 1960s and 70s. He seems to have tried to build a cult, almost literally, around himself, with sexual power plays and promises to form a "God Philharmonic" of the best orchestra ever for those willing to serve him. They even all purchased VWs because that was his favorite car. Lynn Harrell is probably the most prominent name interviewed here.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/03/02/cleveland/cn2Sathz0EMJcdpYouoPjM/story.html?s_camp=bostonglobe:social:sharetools:twitter

(One of the commenters insinuates that Leonard Bernstein is next. Say it ain't so?)
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Baron Scarpia on March 02, 2018, 12:09:08 PM
Sickening.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: SurprisedByBeauty on March 02, 2018, 12:44:03 PM
Quote from: Brian on March 02, 2018, 12:04:04 PM

(One of the commenters insinuates that Leonard Bernstein is next. Say it ain't so?)

Oh, Lenny we'll have a field-day with! Famous anecdote of him sidling up to a youth symphonist - both parents NYP players - at the pool. She's flattered by the attention and even more so when he says: "There is something I can say only to one person in the world, and that's you!" Her eyes grow wide.

"I slept with your mother and your father." Grins and leaves.

Also: is there such a thing as 'soft abuse of power'? At what point is power enthralling enough for people submit willingly?

And when is it Domingo's turn?
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Brian on March 02, 2018, 12:47:53 PM
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on March 02, 2018, 12:44:03 PM
Oh, Lenny we'll have a field-day with! Famous anecdote of him sidling up to a youth symphonist - both parents NYP players - at the pool. She's flattered by the attention and even more so when he says: "There is something I can say only to one person in the world, and that's you!" Her eyes grow wide.

"I slept with your mother and your father." Grins and leaves.

Also: is there such a thing as 'soft abuse of power'? At what point is power enthralling enough for people submit willingly?

And when is it Domingo's turn?
Most of the stories I've heard about Lenny are about his, shall we say, enthusiastic embrace of the sexual. But I have not heard anything about him doing so abusively or nonconsensually. (yet?)

Domingo? Damn.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Baron Scarpia on March 02, 2018, 01:05:15 PM
Quote from: Brian on March 02, 2018, 12:47:53 PMDomingo? Damn.

Meh
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Brian on March 02, 2018, 01:32:46 PM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on March 02, 2018, 01:05:15 PM
Meh
My mom will be sad!
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Baron Scarpia on March 02, 2018, 01:40:40 PM
Quote from: Brian on March 02, 2018, 01:32:46 PM
My mom will be sad!

Pervert, or just a masher like Dutoit? I can still listen to Dutoit. Levine is uncomfortable. Fortunately nothing he did is particularly important to me.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Ken B on March 02, 2018, 02:06:58 PM
Quote from: Brian on March 02, 2018, 12:04:04 PM
The Boston Globe has a new investigation with interviews of 5-6 James Levine colleagues from his early days as a student in the 1960s and 70s. He seems to have tried to build a cult, almost literally, around himself, with sexual power plays and promises to form a "God Philharmonic" of the best orchestra ever for those willing to serve him. They even all purchased VWs because that was his favorite car. Lynn Harrell is probably the most prominent name interviewed here.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/03/02/cleveland/cn2Sathz0EMJcdpYouoPjM/story.html?s_camp=bostonglobe:social:sharetools:twitter

(One of the commenters insinuates that Leonard Bernstein is next. Say it ain't so?)

Lennie? Zero chance. There is ZERO chance that the VW was his favorite car. ZERO.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: The Six on March 12, 2018, 10:28:39 PM
He gone.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: ComposerOfAvantGarde on March 12, 2018, 11:35:18 PM
Quote from: The Six on March 12, 2018, 10:28:39 PM
He gone.

A really great article to be read here

https://van-us.atavist.com/munich-1997

It delves into the politics of the day, that's for sure, which is actually fantastic in seeing how far we have come with issues like this. On the other hand, it still shows how far the world is yet to go.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Baron Scarpia on March 15, 2018, 09:22:23 PM
Sued the Met for defamation for firing him.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/15/arts/music/metropolitan-opera-james-levine.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage

Loss of position and humiliation is insufficient, I think. I hope there will be a criminal trial and that he can be locked up in a penitentiary for the what remains of his natural life.

Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Marc on March 15, 2018, 10:32:17 PM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on March 15, 2018, 09:22:23 PM
Sued the Met for defamation for firing him.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/15/arts/music/metropolitan-opera-james-levine.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage

Loss of position and humiliation is insufficient, I think. I hope there will be a criminal trial and that he can be locked up in a penitentiary for the what remains of his natural life.

[...] "Così Fan Tutte," a specialty of Mr. Levine's [...]

:blank:
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: ComposerOfAvantGarde on March 16, 2018, 01:21:47 AM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on March 15, 2018, 09:22:23 PM
Sued the Met for defamation for firing him.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/15/arts/music/metropolitan-opera-james-levine.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage

Loss of position and humiliation is insufficient, I think. I hope there will be a criminal trial and that he can be locked up in a penitentiary for the what remains of his natural life.

I think so too, although rapists with that much money, power and influence will never end up like that. The problem is just as much the system that protects them as it is these people (Levine, Dutoit etc) themselves.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: MusicTurner on September 22, 2020, 03:58:01 AM
Various news outlets are writing that the court settlement between the MET and Levine means that Levine, who had sued for a 5.8 mio. dollars compensation, got 3.5 mio. dollars in stead. An amount, that has contributed to the current, financial problems that the MET seems to suffer from. So surely he'll be quite fine economically himself.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on September 22, 2020, 06:24:16 AM
Quote from: MusicTurner on September 22, 2020, 03:58:01 AM
Various news outlets are writing that the court settlement between the MET and Levine means that Levine, who had sued for a 5.8 mio. dollars compensation, got 3.5 mio. dollars in stead. An amount, that has contributed to the current, financial problems that the MET seems to suffer from. So surely he'll be quite fine economically himself.

Sexual predation, and a golden parachute. living the Trump dream.
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: André on September 22, 2020, 11:30:18 AM
The Met board of directors and management should be shamed for the whole story, not just Levine. They knew damn well what was happening in their walls and tolerated it for decades. The whole dismissal/compensation scheme is a disgrace for all involved. 
Title: Re: James Levine
Post by: Karl Henning on September 22, 2020, 11:33:17 AM
Quote from: André on September 22, 2020, 11:30:18 AM
The Met board of directors and management should be shamed for the whole story, not just Levine. They knew damn well what was happening in their walls and tolerated it for decades. The whole dismissal/compensation scheme is a disgrace for all involved. 

Absolutely. Overgrown pustules, the lot of them.