James Levine

[SurprisedByBeauty]

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.

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...

[Mahlerian]

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.

What ideology?  I'll defer to you here.

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.

[Florestan]

I promised to stay out, but I'll make (only) one exception to address this.

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.

[Mahlerian]

I 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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

[ritter]

Flogging...dead...horse...

[Karl Henning]

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.

[Pat B]

they the icked the legal/compliance boxes which they needed to ick.

FIFY

[Karl Henning]

Eeeewww

[Karl Henning]

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?

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

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.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

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.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

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.)

[North Star]

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.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

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.

[mc ukrneal]

It's Terry Pratchett.

They should watch Hogfather - lots more of that type of quote!

[Karl Henning]

It's Terry Pratchett.

Thanks for the Enlightenment!

They should watch Hogfather - lots more of that type of quote!

Thanks for the suggestion!

[SurprisedByBeauty]

. 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.

[Pat B]

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.

[Karl Henning]

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.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

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.