James Levine

[Karl Henning]

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.

[Florestan]

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?

[Parsifal]

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.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

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?!"   

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.

[Florestan]

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?

[Parsifal]

rankly, 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.

[Parsifal]

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.

[Brian]

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.

[Florestan]

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.

[Florestan]

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?

[Parsifal]

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.

[Florestan]

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.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

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.

[Parsifal]

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.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

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?

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. :-) )

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! Also his MET Strauss and so forth.

[Karl Henning]

[...] 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.

[Florestan]

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?

[Karl Henning]

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.

[Karl Henning]

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.

[Parsifal]

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."