James Levine

[Ken B]

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:

You've given no evidence to show that it didn't happen.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

Can you prove he didn't?

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

[Ken B]

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.

[Florestan]

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.

[Mahlerian]

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?

[Ken B]

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. 

[Mahlerian]

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?

[Ken B]

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."

[SurprisedByBeauty]

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.

[Pat B]

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.

[Mahlerian]

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.)

[Mahlerian]

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.

[Ken B]

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.

[Mahlerian]

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.

[Pat B]

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.

[mc ukrneal]

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....

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

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.

[Florestan]

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.

[ritter]

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.

[Karl Henning]

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.