# Oh dear! - James Levine



## KenOC

"Metropolitan Opera conductor James Levine facing sexual misconduct probe"

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...es-levine-facing-sexual-misconduct-probe.html

The Chinese say, count no man lucky until he is dead.


----------



## Judith

KenOC said:


> "Metropolitan Opera conductor James Levine facing sexual misconduct probe"
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...es-levine-facing-sexual-misconduct-probe.html
> 
> The Chinese say, count no man lucky until he is dead.


Heard something about this on BBC!


----------



## Templeton

More information in this New York Times article, providing significant background information. Most unsavoury, if true. Those of a more fragile/sensitive disposition may prefer not to read it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/arts/music/james-levine-sexual-misconduct-met-opera.html


----------



## LezLee

A headline on the same page as your link is: 

‘Marie Osmond’s daughter opens up’ .........
.


----------



## Taggart

Seems to be a general problem see

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/02/six-in-ten-classical-musicians-harassed-survey-finds

or

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-musicians-west-end-bbc-radio-3-a8088591.html


----------



## arpeggio

I remember reading that there were rumors that Levine may have been a pedophile twenty years ago. I can not remember where. I do remember discussing this with my opera friends at work.


----------



## Pugg

It's been discussed on this site several times, people then said: " they where just rumours".


----------



## Itullian

*Levine facing sexual misconduct investigation.......*

James Levine of the Metropolitan Opera being
investigated for sexual misconduct.


----------



## Templeton

Some of the links have certainly opened my eyes. My chosen profession entails my working with individuals, who have committed the most heinous crimes but despite this, some of the events described here affect me deeply, probably because classical music has often provided me with welcome relief from such darkness. Whilst I would normally click on the 'Like this post' for all of the responses provided, somehow it does not seem appropriate on this occasion. Nevertheless, I do appreciate the comments that others have provided.


----------



## bigshot

*Met Opera Investigates James Levine for Pedophilia in the 1980s*

I guess this has reached the music world too now.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/arts/music/james-levine-sexual-misconduct-met-opera.html


----------



## Taggart

Several threads have been merged.


----------



## Eramire156

*James Levine-a child molester?*

A sad day, but not a surprise there have been rumors for years.

https://nypost.com/2017/12/02/legendary-opera-conductor-molested-teen-for-years-police-report/


----------



## SiegendesLicht

A modern witch hunt....


----------



## Taggart

I've edited the title because people keep coming across the story and don't see a thread on it so start another one.


----------



## Becca

SiegendesLicht said:


> A modern witch hunt....


Hardly that! The rats have been around in the shadows forever, we have just chosen to ignore them, often because they were figures of power who could make or break careers, but now they are coming into the light. Whether Levine, or anyone else, is guilty is yet to be determined but the fact that the rumours have been around for decades and that a police report was filed over a year ago, before we started seeing daily accusations about famous people, implies that there *could* be something to this particular case.


----------



## eugeneonagain

It's high time this was accepted as a generalised problem. No more of this doubting and individual cases hiding behind a perpetual defence of 'innocent until proven guilty' and claiming a witch-hunt. 

Thirty years ago I was a boarder at a fairly well-known school where these things were common talk among students. We used to laugh when we saw a student had a private lesson scheduled with a particular teacher; because we knew no better at that age. I suffered no major abuse, but I had unusual experiences, like the old fellow who ran his hands up and down my ribs and over the pectorals when explaining 'breathing' for the trumpet. I told him to cool it, but it took some courage. Another grabbed me by the hair after I refused to eat a Mr Kipling's 'fondant fancy'. I now realise that it was a 'test' to see how malleable I was.

It's depressing to realise that almost every corner of activity, education, work even when people are in care situations, seems to harbour some of this activity.


----------



## Bellinilover

Eramire156 said:


> A sad day, but not a surprise there have been rumors for years.
> 
> https://nypost.com/2017/12/02/legendary-opera-conductor-molested-teen-for-years-police-report/


Yes, I had heard them, too -- and I've only been an opera-lover since 1998.

What I'm wondering is, will Peter Gelb have to leave the Met now? Apparently, he shielded Levine from the police for a year.

Some on another site were suggesting that this scandal could in fact mean the end of the Metropolitan Opera as an institution (I hope not).


----------



## ldiat

from face book 15 mins ago
The Metropolitan Opera
13 mins · 
We are suspending our relationship with James Levine, pending an investigation, following multiple allegations of sexual misconduct by Mr. Levine that took place from the 1960's to the 1980's, including the earlier part of his conducting career at the Met. Mr. Levine will not be involved in any Met activities, including conducting scheduled performances at the Met this season. "While we await the results of the investigation, based on these new news reports, the Met has made the decision to act now," said Peter Gelb, Met General Manager, whose actions are fully supported by the leadership of the Met Board and its Executive Committee. "This is a tragedy for anyone whose life has been affected."


----------



## amfortas

Sad news, and depressing that so many men, for so long, have abused their positions of power. Doubly sad that so much of this abuse was an open secret, and yet still went unchecked.

But good that the victims finally feel empowered to speak up in such large numbers--and that, at least for now, they're being taken more seriously than ever before.


----------



## KenOC

eugeneonagain said:


> ... No more of this doubting and individual cases hiding behind a perpetual defence of 'innocent until proven guilty'


"Innocent until proven guilty" is not a defense but a basic principle of justice. It is the bedrock of the criminal justice systems in many countries, including mine. I am quite glad of that.


----------



## eugeneonagain

KenOC said:


> "Innocent until proven guilty" is not a defense but a basic principle of justice. It is the bedrock of the criminal justice systems in many countries, including mine. I am quite glad of that.


Where do you think I hail from? Ancient Sparta? I also believe in that principle, but this is not exactly what I was referring to. 
Your country has put more people to death on flimsier evidence than that which has been presented in a huge number of abuse and sexual abuse cases. I am talking about people with obviously dirty hands playing the system and being aided-and-abetted by a certain vocal group hell-bent on pushing the view that these accusations - especially of popular figures - must be trumped-up by gold-diggers and spurned people and celebrity-seekers.

The trial of Bill Cosby was a side-show travesty.


----------



## KenOC

eugeneonagain said:


> Your country has put more people to death on flimsier evidence than that which has been presented in a huge number of abuse and sexual abuse cases. I am talking about people with obviously dirty hands.


Well, if you've got a rope I have a tree you can use. Lots of "obviously guilty" people around, I'm sure.


----------



## eugeneonagain

KenOC said:


> Well, if you've got a rope I have a tree you can use. Lots of "obviously guilty" people around, I'm sure.


No thanks, the death penalty is illegal here in Europe. I'm perfectly happy about that.

I'll repeat what you appear to be failing to grasp: that people with a mountain of compelling evidence against them are wheedling their way out of charges by playing the 'witch hunt' card and relying upon a (sub)culture of accuser belittling. That they are presumed innocent as they should be in law - is taken as a sign of clean hands all the way.

I can't think of another way of expressing it.


----------



## Jemarchesurtousleschemins

*James Levine Suspended From Met Opera*

According to the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/03/arts/music/james-levine-met-opera.html), the Metropolitan Opera's website, and a whole lot of other sources, James Levine has been suspended indefinitely from the Met after several sexual assault allegations, which includes his removal from all performances of _Tosca_, _Il trovatore_, and _Luisa Miller_ this season (also marking yet another personnel change for the new production of _Tosca_).
My thoughts and best wishes go out to everyone affected.


----------



## KJ von NNJ

This is indeed disturbing news. I read the New York Times article and there seems to be similar patterns of behavior in regards to the alleged incidents. I have heard and read about several incidents involving other artists in the classical music world over the years. Some were tried and incarcerated for their indiscretions. Years ago, many escaped further investigation, no doubt using their positions to control the damage. 
I guess we will be hearing more sordid accounts about people who just could not seem to keep their urges in check. It is scary because there are plenty of liars in the world. I suppose we will have to wait for a statement from maestro Levine to see if he denies or admits some or all, of the allegations. If he denies, there will still be plenty of people who will not believe him. Unfortunately, as in so many of these cases physical proof is very rare. However, once again, considering James Levine, there seems to be several similar descriptions of sexual abuse over a long period of time. Is everyone lying? Not likely, I have to say. Unless it IS a witch hunt.


----------



## KenOC

Not a new problem. In the 1500s Nicolas Gombert, "Master of the Boys" in the court of emperor Charles V, was found guilty of being far too familiar with one of his charges. Although he was (and is) a highly-regarded composer, he was sentenced to hard labor in the galleys and served there for several years. He later returned, chastened one would hope, and evidently resumed his duties.

Such solutions are no longer available to us. Do we live in a crueler age?


----------



## interestedin

bigshot said:


> Met Opera Investigates James Levine for Pedophilia in the 1980s


Let's stick to the facts, please. The _alleged_ crime in question is sexual harassment/abuse of young men and abuse of power, not "pedophilia".


----------



## Enthusiast

The offence is a horrible one although quite how horrible will depend on the actual circumstances. It is also an offence that we have tended to ignore until recently, leaving lots of damaged and traumatised victims with no recourse to justice. But because it is so serious it is surely very important not to condemn an accused until it is proved. 

Whatever the truth about Levine he is seriously damaged by the allegations and this is presumably the end of his career. I imagine, also, that many of his recordings will end up in the second hand bins. If he is prosecuted and found guilty, though, he should also be punished by law and should not be given leniency simply because he is a pillar of the establishment. Indeed, the opposite should be the case,


----------



## Harrowby Hall

And there is no evidence in these reports that Levine has ever been a _paedophile._ However, he may well be a _hebephile_.


----------



## Judith

In the UK, innocent until proven guilty!


----------



## Triplets

arpeggio said:


> I remember reading that there were rumors that Levine may have been a pedophile twenty years ago. I can not remember where. I do remember discussing this with my opera friends at work.


That was my first reaction as well, that this was old news


----------



## Triplets

KenOC said:


> Not a new problem. In the 1500s Nicolas Gombert, "Master of the Boys" in the court of emperor Charles V, was found guilty of being far too familiar with one of his charges. Although he was (and is) a highly-regarded composer, he was sentenced to hard labor in the galleys and served there for several years. He later returned, chastened one would hope, and evidently resumed his duties.
> 
> Such solutions are no longer available to us. Do we live in a crueler age?


Jean Baptiste Lully apparently belonged to a club of pedarasts that would serially abuse poor children of both genders. His only punishment was to be banned from some Court activities at the end of his life by The Sun King


----------



## chill782002

eugeneonagain said:


> It's high time this was accepted as a generalised problem. No more of this doubting and individual cases hiding behind a perpetual defence of 'innocent until proven guilty' and claiming a witch-hunt.
> 
> Thirty years ago I was a boarder at a fairly well-known school where these things were common talk among students. We used to laugh when we saw a student had a private lesson scheduled with a particular teacher; because we knew no better at that age. I suffered no major abuse, but I had unusual experiences, like the old fellow who ran his hands up and down my ribs and over the pectorals when explaining 'breathing' for the trumpet. I told him to cool it, but it took some courage. Another grabbed me by the hair after I refused to eat a Mr Kipling's 'fondant fancy'. I now realise that it was a 'test' to see how malleable I was.
> 
> It's depressing to realise that almost every corner of activity, education, work even when people are in care situations, seems to harbour some of this activity.


Me too. I literally had to fight my way out of the room of one older boy who had kindly offered to coach me in Latin verbs. Turns out that was the last thing he had on his mind. Nonetheless, this sadly seems to have been much more prevalent than I thought. I would like to add, however, that this does not relate to the case of Mr Levine and "innocent until proven guilty" is still a generally accepted legal precept in most countries.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Let's be clear, this old man is not likely to go to trial anyway. People talk about the end of his career, but how old is he? He's had his career and already more-or-less retired. His minor recovery from recent ailments will no doubt relapse as and when necessary, like Bill Cosby suddenly becoming blind and disabled until he emerged from court in triumph.

Please, I don't want to hear another repetition of "innocent until proven guilty in _this_ country!". We all accept that principle, so cut it out. It's as if folk have trouble learning from recent history. I'm especially disappointed to see UK members parading it and others 'liking' it.

Jimmy Savile was able to carry on with his activities precisely because of a culture of disbelief and sweeping things under the carpet. He was questioned numerous times by police throughout his career and it went nowhere until it was too late. This was entirely due to the same attitude based upon a naive understanding of what the presumption of innocence actually means. It means holding *ALL* judgement in abeyance until any accusations are investigated and proven beyond reasonable doubt, which also means taking all of it seriously. However what is has become in these cases - especially among a certain slice of the population under the idiotic sway of the populist right-wing - is a presumption of the guilt of the _accusers_.

It does not help that there is always a concurrent 'trial by media' going on and that it now includes anyone with an internet connection and a twitter account.

When shrieking 'innocent until proven guilty' those same people might want to think about how they apply this to different cases. How many of the same people would be so nobly balanced in the case of the Nuremberg Trials? Or the trial of the Rosenbergs? Or Saddam Hussein? Or the crashing of a national bank? ...etc It doesn't seem to operate the same way with cases of multiple sexual abuse. The denials are instant and people start crying 'witch hunt!'.


----------



## chill782002

eugeneonagain said:


> Please, I don't want to hear another repetition of "innocent until proven guilty in _this_ country!". We all accept that principle, so cut it out. It's as if folk have trouble learning from recent history. I'm especially disappointed to see UK members parading it and others 'liking' it.


I understand your viewpoint, merely saying that it does not help anyone if the world starts pointing the finger before all the facts have been established. If he is found guilty following due process then he should, quite rightly, be punished. Irrespective of his age.


----------



## interestedin

eugeneonagain said:


> How many of the same people would be so nobly balanced in the case of the Nuremberg Trials? Or the trial of the Rosenbergs? Or Saddam Hussein?


I'm sorry, but while (*if those allegations are true*) what Levine would have done was disgusting, morally inexcusable and criminal: The abuse of power to have sexual relationships to young men does just not put him in the same league as Saddam Hussein (!) or the Nazis (!!) who committed mass murder and genocide. I'm saying this because I've read numerous comments on Facebook calling for Mr Levine to be shot ot hanged. What is wrong with those people???


----------



## Larkenfield

Some of the rabid arguments presented here are exactly why certain laws are still needed, a certain need to suspend judgment, until more is known and culpability is established without doubt. Some never consider that there is always the possibility of a false accusation in such matters that could ruin or damage a life, if not here than elsewhere. But if any of it’s true, Levine‘s career is probably over anyway and what a tragedy to give so much to music and then to have such a tragic downfall. So that’s what investigations are for—to look into matters further to dig out the details and find out more about the circumstances, where the responsibilities lie, and those who are likely involved. God only knows what some of us have done ourselves and happened to get away with. “So innocent until proven guilty” is still better than a lynch mob mentality when people think they know what’s going on but maybe don’t know even the half of it, one way or another. I prefer to wait until more of the details have emerged before coming to any final conclusions about what exactly happened and for how long. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look good for Levine’s fate with his suspension, and if the details are confirmed I hope his accuser(s) will get the help or financial compensation he needs to heal and eventually put this matter behind him, if possible. In the meantime, it might be wise to cool off, chill out, and calm down.


----------



## eugeneonagain

interestedin said:


> I'm sorry, but while (*if those allegations are true*) what Levine would have done was disgusting, morally inexcusable and criminal: The abuse of power to have sexual relationships to young men does just not put him in the same league as Saddam Hussein (!) or the Nazis (!!) who committed mass murder and genocide. I'm saying this because I've read numerous comments on Facebook calling for Mr Levine to be shot ot hanged. What is wrong with those people???


Why are you quoting me with regard to those foolish facebook posts? I didn't say anything about Levine being in the same league as the Nazis or Saddam Hussein. Clearly I was referring to the universal principle of presumed innocence, which is not so universally applied in anything like as neutral a manner as people like to pretend.

Anyone paying even cursory attention to the history of cases of sexual misconduct/abuse knows how few are successful for the plaintiffs and about the persistent low esteem in which such plaintiffs have been held by the media and general public. That is not the description of a _witch-hunt_.

Now that these matters are having a period of being more thoroughly investigated and taken seriously, all manner of reactionaries come crawling out of the woodwork squawking about 'presumed innocence'. Where was all that decent treatment and concern before? Standard opinions up to now have been the usual:' gold-diggers', 'spurned women', 'women seeking to further their careers', acting like sl*ts one minute then changing their minds...' ad nauseum. 
For these reactionaries it is only when it is a young man is the victim that they stop and take stock for a minute - whilst at the same time wondering how a young man didn't just 'man up' kick someone like Levine in the goolies. They seem to have no concept of how these situations unfurl.

It is this toxic culture which has led to deeply divisive opinions. The constant talk of 'presumed innocence' (which under current law will always be in force anyway) is distracting red herring.


----------



## mountmccabe

Triplets said:


> That was my first reaction as well, that this was old news


Rumors about this may be old news, but people filing police reports and going on the record is news. The Metropolitan Opera being approached by the police about this in October 2016 is news. Them announcing that they were starting their own investigation - and even having an independent law firm investigate - only now, more than a year later, is news.


----------



## sabrina

*James Levine banned from Met*

What is this hysteria?
Now James Levine is banned from Met. I have no idea if he is guilty or not, still it's a bit weird. It looks like hunting witches in the black ages. 
I agree we people are not saints and we are full of mistakes. Still looking for some potentially ugly things things that happened 20 years ago is not what we should do right now.
Or, it's all about stinky money?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Give me strength O Lord...:tiphat:


----------



## amfortas

sabrina said:


> I agree we people are not saints and we are full of mistakes. Still looking for some potentially ugly things that happened 20 years ago is not what we should do right now.


If they indeed happened, does 20 years make them less ugly?


----------



## mountmccabe

Witches aren't real. That was a way to terrorize people that had little social power (especially women).

Sexual predators are very real. And some predators have enough power, money, and admiration (which can be from being a Count or a Don or a conductor or a great singer) that they may be able to avoid any serious consequences for a long time, especially if they prey upon people with little social power.

This is not a single thing that happened 20 years ago, but what looks like it could be a pattern from his entire 50-year career. We know for certain that the Met Opera knew about this over a year ago, and it appears they didn't begin any formal investigation until it became a news story. That is to say, as of a couple days ago, the Met Opera was protecting James Levine.

Because yes, much of it is about money. For 40 years, James Levine has meant money for the Metropolitan Opera, so he was allowed to prey on teenagers. But that has changed now that there are news reports and since the culture has changed such that at least some victims are being taken seriously.


----------



## Granate

1. I had the primal Luke Skywalker reaction when I first saw the news on my newspaper feed.

2. I may not be an ignorant and have my own opinion about this whole general situation since October 2016 and the locker room talk, but the Internet has shown me that sharing my opinion about such sensitive topics is a waste of time and positivity (does anyone care?). I've made those mistakes in the past and will not fall again.

Reading your posts with attention, like the "Misogyny" thread. See how well you build your arguments and respect the ToS...

Popcorn and Bruckner!


----------



## Triplets

eugeneonagain said:


> Let's be clear, this old man is not likely to go to trial anyway. People talk about the end of his career, but how old is he? He's had his career and already more-or-less retired. His minor recovery from recent ailments will no doubt relapse as and when necessary, like Bill Cosby suddenly becoming blind and disabled until he emerged from court in triumph.
> 
> Please, I don't want to hear another repetition of "innocent until proven guilty in _this_ country!". We all accept that principle, so cut it out. It's as if folk have trouble learning from recent history. I'm especially disappointed to see UK members parading it and others 'liking' it.
> 
> Jimmy Savile was able to carry on with his activities precisely because of a culture of disbelief and sweeping things under the carpet. He was questioned numerous times by police throughout his career and it went nowhere until it was too late. This was entirely due to the same attitude based upon a naive understanding of what the presumption of innocence actually means. It means holding *ALL* judgement in abeyance until any accusations are investigated and proven beyond reasonable doubt, which also means taking all of it seriously. However what is has become in these cases - especially among a certain slice of the population under the idiotic sway of the populist right-wing - is a presumption of the guilt of the _accusers_.
> 
> It does not help that there is always a concurrent 'trial by media' going on and that it now includes anyone with an internet connection and a twitter account.
> 
> When shrieking 'innocent until proven guilty' those same people might want to think about how they apply this to different cases. How many of the same people would be so nobly balanced in the case of the Nuremberg Trials? Or the trial of the Rosenbergs? Or Saddam Hussein? Or the crashing of a national bank? ...etc It doesn't seem to operate the same way with cases of multiple sexual abuse. The denials are instant and people start crying 'witch hunt!'.


 I think that you are pretty unhinged.
If I understand your rants correctly, you seem to think that there is a Right Wing Conspiracy to protect predators. In this country, however, the accusations have gone against members all over the Political Spectrum. Harvey Weinstein was a huge contributor to all of the right Liberal Causes. Anthony Weiner was married to Hiliary Clinton's Chief of Staff, as well as being a poster boy for Liberal Democratic Politicians. John Conyers is a Black Politician who at the age of 88 will probably be reelected
by his constituents from both a jail cell and a cemetery. Leon Wieseltier is a bastion of intellectual old school Liberalism.
Most of the Hollywood Personalities that have been accused routinely support Leftist Causes. The list goes on.
Nancy Pelosi said that we should give Conyers a pass because of his eminence. Al Franken has Liberal Politicians tying themselves in knots to explain why his case differs from others. All of these people are more likely to oppose the Death Penalty, Climate Change, LGBT Awareness, and all the faults that you find with this country. And on the other side of the Spectrum, we have the Fox News People, Roy Moore...it cuts both ways.
In this kind of a climate, the McCarthy element can be quick to rise. Have you ever have a desire to smear someone, for whatever reason? Well, ruining their lives would be simple. Accuse them of impropriety at some remote point in their lives. And save the accusation for when it can do maximal Political or Personal damage. And enjoy watch the accused squirm as they try to "prove a negative"--prove that they didn't do something, when the standard has become to assume that they are guilty, just because someone says they are.
I personally have seen at least 3 cases where people where accused of wrong doing, and at great financial and personal expense, where able to clear themselves. In each case, it took years, and the Psychological toll on them was horrendous. Try Googling "Tawana Brawley" for one example of how a utterly baseless accusation can inspire a lynch mob mentality and ruin innocent lives.
Yes, "Innocent until proven guilty" can be a tiresome burden for accusers to overcome. It is the only standard however that can be reasonably employed. Since you live in the Country that gave us Madame Defarge, and the rule of the mob


----------



## amfortas

Triplets said:


> In this kind of a climate, the McCarthy element can be quick to rise. Have you ever have a desire to smear someone, for whatever reason? Well, ruining their lives would be simple. Accuse them of impropriety at some remote point in their lives. And save the accusation for when it can do maximal Political or Personal damage. And enjoy watch the accused squirm as they try to "prove a negative"--prove that they didn't do something, when the standard has become to assume that they are guilty, just because someone says they are.


Fair points, though the accusations against Levine appear to be more widespread--and persistent--than your scenario explains.


----------



## The Wolf

Unfortunately there are more similar cases:

https://www.forumopera.com/breve/harcelement-sexuel-653-chanteuses-suedoises-protestent


----------



## eugeneonagain

Triplets said:


> I think that you are pretty unhinged.
> If I understand your rants correctly, you seem to think that there is a Right Wing Conspiracy to protect predators. In this country, however, the accusations have gone against members all over the Political Spectrum. Harvey Weinstein was a huge contributor to all of the right Liberal Causes. Anthony Weiner was married to Hiliary Clinton's Chief of Staff, as well as being a poster boy for Liberal Democratic Politicians. John Conyers is a Black Politician who at the age of 88 will probably be reelected
> by his constituents from both a jail cell and a cemetery. Leon Wieseltier is a bastion of intellectual old school Liberalism.
> Most of the Hollywood Personalities that have been accused routinely support Leftist Causes. The list goes on.
> Nancy Pelosi said that we should give Conyers a pass because of his eminence. Al Franken has Liberal Politicians tying themselves in knots to explain why his case differs from others. All of these people are more likely to oppose the Death Penalty, Climate Change, LGBT Awareness, and all the faults that you find with this country. And on the other side of the Spectrum, we have the Fox News People, Roy Moore...it cuts both ways.
> In this kind of a climate, the McCarthy element can be quick to rise. Have you ever have a desire to smear someone, for whatever reason? Well, ruining their lives would be simple. Accuse them of impropriety at some remote point in their lives. And save the accusation for when it can do maximal Political or Personal damage. And enjoy watch the accused squirm as they try to "prove a negative"--prove that they didn't do something, when the standard has become to assume that they are guilty, just because someone says they are.
> I personally have seen at least 3 cases where people where accused of wrong doing, and at great financial and personal expense, where able to clear themselves. In each case, it took years, and the Psychological toll on them was horrendous. Try Googling "Tawana Brawley" for one example of how a utterly baseless accusation can inspire a lynch mob mentality and ruin innocent lives.
> Yes, "Innocent until proven guilty" can be a tiresome burden for accusers to overcome. It is the only standard however that can be reasonably employed. Since you live in the Country that gave us Madame Defarge, and the rule of the mob


Another reaction from someone who struggles to read what is written? I never even wrote that there is 'a right-wing conspiracy to protect predators'. I'm getting a bit tired of having to point out these misreadings, you really need to pay attention to what you are reading before jumping on the reply button.
What I actually wrote about is people, generally aligned with the populist right, who are obsessed that there is a conspiracy of politically-correct, 'liberals', 'cultural marxists', feminists who are trying to witch-hunt people in power (particularly men) by smearing them with false allegations. So, in fact, the exact opposite of what you claim I wrote.

I'm fully cognizant of the fact that people who have been accused recently come from all quarters, this doesn't in the least detract from the fact that the people in a flap about 'witch-hunts' come from a particular viewpoint. It wouldn't matter if the accused was Trotsky, they'd defend him because their only interest is the fantasy of oppression from the eternal politically correct. However, as you helpfully point out the accusations are not partisan, so they really need to be quiet.

I've got something for you though. I've actually been accused of sexual manipulation by a dishonest woman. Not a police report, but a lie to her mother who did me the honour of believing me because she knew her daughter's behaviour. In no way does it make me think that there is an imbalance in favour of accusers. There are always going to be liars on both sides. The real issue under discussion is the scale of abuses of power involving sexual opportunism and predation and the poor legal repercussions.

So, no, pal, you don't understand my 'rants'. As for you thinking me unhinged, I personally couldn't give a monkey's, though perhaps the admin might take a different view? I'm not one to go running to them with reports so perhaps it will be missed.


----------



## Eramire156

I quickly read some of the posts above, I'd like to point out that the investigation began last year, before the current climate. I find this just sad. I have many recordings conducted by Levine, I will still listen to them, but with knowledge of all this, James Levine is a wonderful musician, but if proven true a pathetic human being. But our focus should not not be on Levine but on the alleged victim(s).

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/arts/music/james-levine-met-opera.html


----------



## KJ von NNJ

These things bring out strong emotions in people. When political facets become involved in otherwise non-political matters, we often spend our time defending ourselves and our views more than discussing the actual topic. I think we all care a lot, and that is for sure! This fact alone is commendable. 
It is true that James Levine had been under investigation before this current newsbreak began. It is also true that Levine had been questioned by police in the past about similar indiscretions. This story is still unfolding and will most likely become more toxic. I myself wish to comment no further. I feel for the many people who are effected by it.


----------



## Seattleoperafan

*Levine and His Boys*

I've heard for around 25 years at least about Levine being a pederast, but I had heard he preferred African American youths. I think the new awareness of abuse has caused these stories to surface. I suspect some sopranos had great careers by holding the dirt over his head. I would have been positive he had made financial arrangements for many of his dallyances, but I am only speculating. I wonder how seriously this will impact the Met, which is struggling as is.


----------



## bz3

interestedin said:


> I'm sorry, but while (*if those allegations are true*) what Levine would have done was disgusting, morally inexcusable and criminal: The abuse of power to have sexual relationships to young men does just not put him in the same league as Saddam Hussein (!) or the Nazis (!!) who committed mass murder and genocide. I'm saying this because I've read numerous comments on Facebook calling for Mr Levine to be shot ot hanged. What is wrong with those people???


A bullet or a rope is a good start for child predators. If guilty, of course. Disappointed in Levine.


----------



## jerboy

mountmccabe, you summed up the situation nicely. Sadly, money may have been a main driver of actions, or lack thereof, by Gelb and the Met BOD, first to sweep pervasive rumors under the rug for years and now, with Met survival in the balance, to cut Levine loose.


----------



## KenOC

bz3 said:


> A bullet or a rope is a good start for child predators.


Always discouraging to hear voices, swollen with righteous indignation, raised in support of crushing people with weaknesses unacceptable in our current fashion. If we were to look at history, and not so distant history at that, how many ropes would we need? I'm sure many of us can name some names, names of people whose music we enjoy without giving their sins too much thought. Sad that many are safely gone, beyond the reach of the retribution we would gladly mete out to them!


----------



## Polyphemus

Mathew Hopkins would have been an excelent investigator in these matters.

:tiphat:


----------



## sabrina

How can you prove that what happened 40 years ago, what not an agreement of some type between the guys? I understand it happened when Levine was 21. I wasn't much of a difference age wise. I am not trying to defend JL. But if there are no facts, only declarations....


----------



## Taggart

Some overly political posts (and the replies to them) have been removed.

Please concentrate on the musical scene and avoid references to politics.

Any political discussion should take place in the social groups.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Wasn't James Levine a marvellous conductor?


----------



## mountmccabe

sabrina said:


> How can you prove that what happened 40 years ago, what not an agreement of some type between the guys? I understand it happened when Levine was 21. I wasn't much of a difference age wise. I am not trying to defend JL. But if there are no facts, only declarations....


You understand incorrectly. Or, at the least, none of the four accusers are saying anything about Levine when he was 21, but you may be right, he may have been abusing children then, too.

Three of the accusers talk about when Levine was 25, and for the other the abuse is alleged to start when Levine was 43 and the boy was 16.

I would be shocked if these were the only incidents.


----------



## Scott in PA

The "innocent until proven guilty" standard is meant to keep a person from going to jail (or the gallows). It doesn't necessarily entitle them to continue in their current position.

Sort of fitting that his last performance was a Requiem.


----------



## Becca

mountmccabe said:


> You understand incorrectly. Or, at the least, none of the four accusers are saying anything about Levine when he was 21, but you may be right, he may have been *abusing children* then, too.
> 
> Three of the accusers talk about when Levine was 25, and for the other the abuse is alleged to start when Levine was 43 and the boy was 16.
> 
> I would be shocked if these were the only incidents.


A technical/legal point and not one intended to represent an opinion about Levine et.al., I believe that all of the currently known accusers were at least 16 at the time, therefore the cases are not considered to be pedophilia.


----------



## KenOC

Scott in PA said:


> The "innocent until proven guilty" standard is meant to keep a person from going to jail (or the gallows). It doesn't necessarily entitle them to continue in their current position.


True, but civil law might be a factor. Conductors often have multi-year contracts with their orchestras. Payment would be due unless the conductor violated the contract. For instance, there might be a "reprehensible behavior" clause; but that likely would not apply until the behavior is proven or admitted. Accusations alone wouldn't justify non-payment.

Depending on Levine's contract, he may now enjoy sizeable payments for doing nothing at all, a situation which may last a long time.


----------



## eugeneonagain

KenOC said:


> Depending on Levine's contract, he may now enjoy sizeable payments for doing nothing at all, a situation which may last a long time.


So continuing in more-or-less the same capacity then.


----------



## Seattleoperafan

He was a great conductor and beloved by his singers. Sadly, he had a dark side as well. I feel for those boys as he was a very unattractive man to have to play footsy with.


----------



## bz3

KenOC said:


> Always discouraging to hear voices, swollen with righteous indignation, raised in support of crushing people with weaknesses unacceptable in our current fashion. If we were to look at history, and not so distant history at that, how many ropes would we need? I'm sure many of us can name some names, names of people whose music we enjoy without giving their sins too much thought. Sad that many are safely gone, beyond the reach of the retribution we would gladly mete out to them!


I don't really count preying on children and adolescents as a "weakness" once it's acted upon. It's a crime, and a terrible one. I am friends with victims of child sexual assault and I don't think calling something a "weakness" excuses the trail of hurt and trauma it leaves behind. In many cases I think child sexual assault is worse than rape.


----------



## ashleymic

Dear all,

For anyone wishing to sign a petition asking the Met Opera to reinstate James Levine, here is a link: https://www.change.org/p/metropolitan-opera-reinstate-james-levine-at-the-metropolitan-opera

Kind regards,
Ashley


----------



## bigshot

Has anyone googled the name of the accuser? He is well represented on the internet and seems to be quite a character.


----------



## Becca

bigshot said:


> Has anyone googled the name of the accuser? He is well represented on the internet and seems to be quite a character.


"the" accuser ... the last I saw there were at least 4.


----------



## amfortas

ashleymic said:


> Dear all,
> 
> For anyone wishing to sign a petition asking the Met Opera to reinstate James Levine, here is a link: https://www.change.org/p/metropolitan-opera-reinstate-james-levine-at-the-metropolitan-opera
> 
> Kind regards,
> Ashley


From the above petition:

"It is not the role or duty of the administrations of any companies - be it Hollywood film studios or, in this case, the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Opera - to take the place of the legal authorities. Within these boards of directors there are no police officers, attorneys or judges. No member of these administrations has passed the bar in their respective state. Many trials in court have shown that sometimes even extremely successful judges allow miscarriages of justice and unfair verdicts. Yet according to the administrations of these private institutions, we are to be believe that they possess the power to determine an accused person's criminal guilt oftentimes without even the help of these entities - and on the basis of their findings to dismiss any given employee and end his or her career."

This seems to work from the assumption that the innocent-until-proven-guilty standard for criminal prosecution also applies to workplace dismissal. But as Scott suggests above, that's not necessarily the case.


----------



## KenOC

amfortas said:


> ...This seems to work from the assumption that the innocent-until-proven-guilty standard for criminal prosecution also applies to workplace dismissal. But as Scott suggests above, that's not necessarily the case.


I don't recall reading that the Met has fired Levine or canceled his contract. My impression is that he has been sidelined, removed from musical activities, until this gets sorted out. Similarly, in most places a cop is taken off the street after any shooting until it can be determined that his conduct was proper.

So I doubt that any principles of justice have been violated, or that his "guilt" is presumed. Unless, of course, somebody has news of what specific actions the Met has taken!


----------



## Pugg

ashleymic said:


> Dear all,
> 
> For anyone wishing to sign a petition asking the Met Opera to reinstate James Levine, here is a link: https://www.change.org/p/metropolitan-opera-reinstate-james-levine-at-the-metropolitan-opera
> 
> Kind regards,
> Ashley


Why should we and who are you


----------



## Pugg

From Ceefax in my country:

T


> he public prosecutor in Illinois serves no criminal complaint against James Levine, the former conductor of The Metropolitan Opera in New York. Levine (74) was a week ago accused of sexual abuse, he would thirty years ago have abused a boy of 16. According to the plaintiff, the case was examined and there are several factors that have led to this decision, including the fact that the one that Levine has accused sexual coming of age at the time that the abuse would have occurred. There was also no question of coercion. Levine denies the past week was Levine by three men accused, after which he was suspended by The Metropolitan. That suspected abuse took place in the years 60 and 70. As far as is known, the men have no registered. Levine has always contradicted the accusations. Against The New York Times he says that they are unfounded. "As anyone who knows me knows, I have not lived my life as oppressor or attacker." The world famous conductor was forty years associated with The Metropolitan Opera, where he conducted performances 2500.


----------



## newyorkconversation

Here's a newspaper version: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ual-misconduct-no-charges-20171208-story.html


----------



## SixFootScowl

If he is innocent of these acts, then is is a great injustice to remove him from his musical work. On the other hand, if he is guilty, it is detestable. Not sure the truth will ever come out but it seems his career is over.


----------



## Quacker

There have been decades upon decades of rumors and stories and now there are multiple accusers willing to comment on the matter. Innocent until guilty in a court of law for specific crimes, of course, but it would have to be the grandest of all conspiracies for him to be innocent of all of this. I'm sorry if this bit of reality is inconvenient for people who just want to lose themselves in the music, but that feeling of discomfort doesn't make it untrue.


----------



## KenOC

It seems, from newspaper reports liked to in this thread, that there will be no charges brought against Maestro Levine. For several reasons, including that the accuser was at the age of consent in Illinois when the whole affair started and there is no evidence of coercion. So, by all accounts (including the accuser's) this was a wholly consensual and legal gay relationship. If we were to boycott the world of classical music (including its composers) for that sort of thing, the industry would be depopulated.

Of course there may be more to follow from the other accusations.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Accuser first makes accusations and claims to have been uncomfortable, then later decides it was a consensual gay relationship.
Nothing at all unusual about that.

Here's one of the comments from the ABC news site:



> "I began seeing a 41-year-old man when I was 15, without really understanding I was really 'seeing' him," the alleged victim, now 48, said in a written statement to police. "It nearly destroyed my family and almost led me to suicide. I felt alone and afraid. He was trying to seduce me. I couldn't see this. Now I can."
> This doesn't explain how he tried to seduce him and if it was so innocent when he was younger what does he see that is not innocent now? I don't buy this. I think maybe this kid had some feelings for him when he was younger and this is what caused his family to be so called destroyed and almost caused him to commit suicide because they all realized he was gay and after almost 30 years he thinks it was this guys fault because he had feelings for him and he is coming at him. I think this guy needs counseling and should just come out of the closet and stop blaming other people for the way he is.


What this clown fails to understand - even after quoting the obvious clue - is that a 15year-old boy (or even a 16 year-old boy) is not in the same place psychologically or sexually as a 40 year-old man. More importantly it is incumbent on the older person in a position of trust to maintain professionalism and to behave with all the decency he has been trusted to maintain.

There is seemingly a large number of people who lack the ability to figure this out for themselves.


----------



## Bellinilover

eugeneonagain said:


> Accuser first makes accusations and claims to have been uncomfortable, then later decides it was a consensual gay relationship.
> Nothing at all unusual about that.
> 
> Here's one of the comments from the ABC news site:
> 
> What this clown fails to understand - even after quoting the obvious clue - is that a 15year-old boy (or even a 16 year-old boy) is not in the same place psychologically or sexually as a 40 year-old man. More importantly it is incumbent on the older person in a position of trust to maintain professionalism and to behave with all the decency he has been trusted to maintain.
> 
> There is seemingly a large number of people who lack the ability to figure this out for themselves.


I like this comment from one of the "New York Times" articles. The man who made this comment seems to know something about law:

_"For those claiming the kid in question was old enough to make responsible decisions regarding sex, the only answer to that is PERHAPS. That is why judges have a great deal of leeway in statutory rape cases. Levine was in a position of power and celebrity, and had a great deal of money. This created a situation where a teenager might repeatedly do things they later regret...It is quite possible for a teenager to be cowed by the fame of a man like Levine, and certainly be drawn to the financial gifts. I can easily understand how he might consent repeatedly to something he would quickly regret and be plagued by later doubts and damage to his self esteem. And if Levine used his fame and money to manipulate the kid, and especially if he later used threats of revelation of the sex, this would certainly be abuse."
_


----------



## Pugg

Quacker said:


> There have been decades upon decades of rumors and stories and now there are multiple accusers willing to comment on the matter. Innocent until guilty in a court of law for specific crimes, of course, but it would have to be the grandest of all conspiracies for him to be innocent of all of this. I'm sorry if this bit of reality is inconvenient for people who just want to lose themselves in the music, but that feeling of discomfort doesn't make it untrue.


Proving things is something others then spreading rumours on the internet.


----------



## Flamme

SiegendesLicht said:


> A modern witch hunt....


Exactly, was thinking...Sort of ''satanic panic'' of modern era, mass hysteria, new ''red scare'' along with (anti)russian paranoia...With due respect to real victims...


----------



## amfortas

Pugg said:


> Proving things is something others then spreading rumours on the internet.


Sounds like some of these rumors preceded the internet.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Flamme said:


> Exactly, was thinking...Sort of ''satanic panic'' of modern era, mass hysteria, new ''red scare'' along with (anti)russian paranoia...With due respect to real victims...


You are confused. The difference with a "witch hunt" is that none of the people being hunted were 'witches' because the very idea of a 'witch' is fantasy. 
The issue under discussion in this thread is real. Since at least the fall of Jimmy Savile a large number of famous (and not so famous people) have received actual prison sentences for actual crimes, encompassing historical up to recent events.

This is not 'witch hunting' it is severely delayed justice.


----------



## Larkenfield

———-cancelled———


----------



## eugeneonagain

Larkenfield said:


> That some people have experienced actual punishment for engaging in under-age sex or exploitation does not justify it being bandied about with the assumption of presumed guilt by association for somebody else. I can only imagine what a few of the morally self-righteous have committed and not been found out about. Maybe it was cheating on their wives or their taxes, or cheating a friend out of money, or lusting after an under-aged teenager even if the person did nothing about it. But there's always something hidden away, and God help them if they meet the same type of judgmental and merciless accusers who go off half-cocked because of insufficient evidence, with no proof of illegality in this instance, and are judged in kind. What the law does is introduce the possibility of doubt when it comes to one's presumed guilt by the rabid moralists, rather than two people who were engaged in a mutually consenting and not unlawful relationship. In any event, I'm sure Mr. Levine will deeply reflect on his past and future behavior, and I look forward to hearing more of his outstanding Met broadcasts.


You are proffering a flawed argument. If I say beating children is wrong, whilst I also beat children, it doesn't make what I say any less wrong; it merely makes me a hypocrite. Similarly, if I have committed any of the things you list without being caught, it still doesn't render my judgement (or prejudgement based upon what is known) of someone else's behaviour after being caught, any less valid. The course of the law has to be maintained in any case.

The suggestion you make of a "mutually consenting relationship" is at best a form of naivety and at worst the same deliberate goalpost shifting employed elsewhere in this thread. Men in their 40s - in positions of influence and power - and 15 year-old boys very rarely (if ever) have "mutually consenting relationships". If you discover your own 15-16 year-old son or daughter is having a "mutually consenting relationship" with the school headmaster, are you okay with that? Will you calmly enumerate and consider _the facts_ before looking askance at the entire episode?


----------



## Pugg

amfortas said:


> Sounds like some of these rumors preceded the internet.


And we all are guilty by doing so.


----------



## KenOC

eugeneonagain said:


> Men in their 40s - in positions of influence and power - and 15 year-old boys very rarely (if ever) have "mutually consenting relationships". If you discover your own 15-16 year-old son or daughter is having a "mutually consenting relationship" with the school headmaster, are you okay with that?


1. The younger man was 16, at an age to legally consent to a sexual relationship.

2. Levine was not his "headmaster" or even scoutmaster; he had no such relationship with the younger man at all. To say he was in a "position of trust" is meaningless, except that the younger man may well have trusted him. In fact, I've seen nothing to suggest that Levine betrayed that trust.

3. If my son, of legal age, was having a relationship with an older person (man or woman) I might well disapprove, but that would hardly be a new thing in the annals of humanity. At some point, at some age, you pay your nickel and you make your choice.


----------



## Mandryka

KenOC said:


> 1. The younger man was 16, at an age to legally consent to a sexual relationship.
> 
> 2. Levine was not his "headmaster" or even scoutmaster; he had no such relationship with the younger man at all. To say he was in a "position of trust" is meaningless, except that the younger man may well have trusted him. In fact, I've seen nothing to suggest that Levine betrayed that trust.
> 
> 3. If my son, of legal age, was having a relationship with an older person (man or woman) I might well disapprove, but that would hardly be a new thing in the annals of humanity. At some point, at some age, you pay your nickel and you make your choice.


Yes.

Except I'm not totally sure that it's legal in the US for someone to have sex with a 16 year old of s/he's much older. I'm not an American, it's just something I've read and it may be false, there's something in the USA called statutory rape.


----------



## Mandryka

......................


----------



## Becca

Mandryka said:


> Yes.
> 
> Except I'm not totally sure that it's legal in the US for someone to have sex with a 16 year old of s/he's much older. I'm not an American, it's just something I've read and it may be false, there's something in the USA called statutory rape.


Statuory rape is sex with anyone under the age of consent, i.e. (usually) 16, whether it was consensual or not.


----------



## Mandryka

So are we clear that in the States, someone of 40 having sex with someone 16 years old is not breaking the law, assuming both were consenting?


----------



## Becca

At the risk of this thread becoming a discourse on law ... not exactly. Firstly these types of laws can and do vary in detail from state to state, there is no single federal law on the matter. Secondly there can be big questions about what exactly constitutes consenting, particularly when the older person has a real or potential position of power/authority. I am sure that there are lots more hazy areas around this and please realize that I am not a lawyer nor have any wish to be!


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Mandryka said:


> So are we clear that in the States, someone of 40 having sex with someone 16 years old is not breaking the law, assuming both were consenting?


Depends on the state and whether the older person is a school teacher or someone else like that over the younger person.


----------



## Guest

An old chinese saying :

" when love slips out of the window, the law enters through the other window" .

Is there love if a middle aged man seeks the fysical comfort of a young boy?

There can be a strong atracction that narrows the mind to make it possible to do what you like.
Only ones own desire is there and the other is not.


----------



## Flamme

eugeneonagain said:


> *You are confused.* The difference with a "witch hunt" is that none of the people being hunted were 'witches' because the very idea of a 'witch' is fantasy.
> The issue under discussion in this thread is real. Since at least the fall of Jimmy Savile a large number of famous (and not so famous people) have received actual prison sentences for actual crimes, encompassing historical up to recent events.
> 
> This is not 'witch hunting' it is severely delayed justice.


Hmmm...But judging by the press frenzy there is no famous celebrity without these ''skeletons in the closet''...Somehow i find that hard to believe...


----------



## amfortas

Flamme said:


> Hmmm...But judging by the press frenzy there is no famous celebrity without these ''skeletons in the closet''...Somehow i find that hard to believe...


You may find it hard to believe because no one is making that claim.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Flamme said:


> Hmmm...But judging by the press frenzy there is no famous celebrity without these ''skeletons in the closet''...Somehow i find that hard to believe...


Which bit? That there are no famous celebrities without skeletons in the closet, or that the press (you claim) thinks this?

(Neither one is true).


----------



## bz3

I don't know about that particular state's law on 16 year olds, but I thought that Indian guy said he was 14 and Levine was in his 40s. It's been a week or so since I read the article and I don't feel like looking it up but that is illegal in every state and was in the 80s.


----------



## KenOC

bz3 said:


> I don't know about that particular state's law on 16 year olds, but I thought that Indian guy said he was 14 and Levine was in his 40s. It's been a week or so since I read the article and I don't feel like looking it up but that is illegal in every state and was in the 80s.


The young man whose charges were being investigated was 16 years old at the time of the first reported sexual contact, then the age of consent in Illinois. That state has since raised the age of consent to 17, or to 18 "in cases where the suspect is in a position of trust, authority or supervision in relation to the victim." But such changes are not retroactive. In any event, the statute of limitations has long since passed in that case.

I don't know whether other accusations are being investigated, or whether the statute of limitations applies.


----------



## Templeton

'Out of darkness cometh light' - The Munich Philharmonic has now issued a statement but on a more uplifting note, read the lovely comments regarding Günter Wand that follow the article:

http://slippedisc.com/2017/12/munich-reflects-on-its-james-levine-years/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+slippedisc%2FnICW+%28Slipped+Disc%29


----------



## Flamme

I think the ''border'' for sexual misconduct and harassing is moving further down the line every year, even month! It goes to the point when even a ''dirty look'' could land you in jail...


----------



## eugeneonagain

KenOC said:


> 1. The younger man was 16, at an age to legally consent to a sexual relationship.


You're having a laugh. Guess what, my neighbour's daughter is 16 too, so when I give her trumpet lessons and the 'mutual attraction' grows, her parents will have to just like it or lump it. That's about the size of it right?



KenOC said:


> 2. Levine was not his "headmaster" or even scoutmaster; he had no such relationship with the younger man at all. To say he was in a "position of trust" is meaningless, except that the younger man may well have trusted him. In fact, I've seen nothing to suggest that Levine betrayed that trust.


Why are you claiming it is "meaningless" when you know that's not true? It seems to me that you must have trouble remembering what it was like to be under 20 and the position of the average young person against an established adult; let alone one with power and prestige. 
You keep wanting to portray this as some kind of consenting adults encounter, where the boy entered into it on equal grounds, but now wants to publicly shrug off what he later feels guilty about. It's a tired and discredited argument and the one used to justify wrongdoing of this sort. Assuming Levine did nothing illegal, only a complete idiot gets himself into a situation where it could be alleged. Thousands of schoolteachers and mentors inter alios, manage to keep a professional approach. If you don't, you betray the professional trust. You need to learn and accept this fact.



KenOC said:


> 3. If my son, of legal age, was having a relationship with an older person (man or woman) I might well disapprove, but that would hardly be a new thing in the annals of humanity. At some point, at some age, you pay your nickel and you make your choice.


Easily said amigo. What has been going on for a very long time are sexual encounters that are very one-sided and lop-sided. Predatory opportunism cushioned by fear and by the entire issue perpetually being hushed up.

If Levine had declared early on: 'Okay everyone, I'm a gay with a penchant for young men'. He wouldn't have been in the job very long and the deep irony is that the same people who would have disapproved of him are curiously enough the same people making shrill claims about "witch-hunts" once men like Levine come a cropper. Then all kinds of rubbish is wheeled out about 'ages of consent' and the boring circus about which U.S. state has what age or is backward enough for it to be in the low teens. I don't care about all that legal tripe because it obscures the reality of power relations.


----------



## Guest

Flamme said:


> I think the ''border'' for sexual misconduct and harassing is moving further down the line every year, even month! It goes to the point when even a ''dirty look'' could land you in jail...


It doesn't.00000000000000


----------



## KenOC

eugeneonagain said:


> ...Then all kinds of rubbish is wheeled out about 'ages of consent' and the boring circus about which U.S. state has what age or is backward enough for it to be in the low teens. I don't care about all that legal tripe because it obscures the reality of power relations.


The US is, of course, governed by laws, not by individual opinions...even yours. I like it that way. It seems to have worked out better than some alternative approaches tried elsewhere!


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> The US is, of course, governed by laws, not by individual opinions...even yours. I like it that way. It seems to have worked out better than some alternative approaches tried elsewhere!


It isn't all about the law. Is it still legal to rape animals in parts of the US?


----------



## KenOC

Tulse said:


> It isn't all about the law. Is it still legal to rape animals in parts of the US?


Looks like currently bestiality is legal in five states, as it was formerly covered by sodomy laws that have been repealed. New laws in these states have been enacted or are in process and are likely to be effective next year.

A group called _Students of Objectivism for Rational Bestiality _supports making sex with animals legal, but only if you own the animals (they're Libertarians of course). Given that some animal rights groups claim it should be illegal to own animals at all, things could get pretty deep pretty fast around here!


----------



## SixFootScowl

Flamme said:


> I think the ''border'' for sexual misconduct and harassing is moving further down the line every year, even month! It goes to the point when even a ''dirty look'' could land you in jail...


That, of course, is the highest standard, but I would not advocate jailing people for it. At the same time, I would not want other men looking dirty at my wife, but then, thankfully, she does not dress in a way that would unduly encourage such looks in public.


----------



## eugeneonagain

KenOC said:


> The US is, of course, governed by laws, not by individual opinions...even yours. I like it that way. It seems to have worked out better than some alternative approaches tried elsewhere!


Ah sorry, I keep forgetting that the world beyond the borders of the U.S. is run by despots and bandits. Or was it that we have all managed to formulate law that applies equally to the entire nation rather than how quickly you can drive across the state border?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Fritz Kobus said:


> That, of course, is the highest standard, but I would not advocate jailing people for it. At the same time, I would not want other men looking dirty at my wife, but then, *thankfully, she does not dress in a way that would unduly encourage such looks in public.*


We all know who wears the trousers then.


----------



## KenOC

eugeneonagain said:


> Ah sorry, I keep forgetting that the world beyond the borders of the U.S. is run by despots and bandits. Or was it that we have all managed to formulate law that applies equally to the entire nation rather than how quickly you can drive across the state border?


Certainly some here like a modicum of local rule and some limitation on the power of the central government. Read Amendment 10 of our constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." What a thought!


----------



## SixFootScowl

eugeneonagain said:


> We all know who wears the trousers then.


Has nothing to do with it.


----------



## eugeneonagain

KenOC said:


> Certainly some here like a modicum of local rule and some limitation on the power of the central government. Read Amendment 10 of our constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." What a thought!


That constitution is nothing but a millstone rounds your necks.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Fritz Kobus said:


> Has nothing to do with it.


It was a double-meaning: the old 'we know who the boss is' and also a reference to your wife possibly wearing trousers to be modest.

Never mind.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

eugeneonagain said:


> That constitution is nothing but a millstone rounds your necks.


No, it is a check to keep the federal government from getting too strong and the people can restrain it.


----------



## KenOC

eugeneonagain said:


> That constitution is nothing but a millstone rounds your necks.


An odd opinion. The US is now the oldest continuous government on earth, possibly excepting Switzerland. Our Constitution may have something to do with that! There are zero factions in the US (so far as I know) calling for it to be replaced. It can be amended of course, and has been from time to time.

The Constitution came into force in 1788, and the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) in 1791, 226 years ago. It has since been amended 17 times, most recently in 1992. Some of these amendments are quite substantial and include items such as the basis for federal taxation, freedom and citizenship for former slaves, and female suffrage.


----------



## SixFootScowl

eugeneonagain said:


> It was a double-meaning: the old 'we know who the boss is' and also a reference to your wife possibly wearing trousers to be modest.
> 
> Never mind.


Thought of both, but didn't think the trousers really are necessary for modesty (more for practicality though) and in some cases can be rather immodest (I have seen women who must have had to use a shoehorn to get into their pants).


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Looks like currently bestiality is legal in five states, as it was formerly covered by sodomy laws that have been repealed. New laws in these states have been enacted or are in process and are likely to be effective next year.
> 
> A group called _Students of Objectivism for Rational Bestiality _supports making sex with animals legal, but only if you own the animals (they're Libertarians of course). Given that some animal rights groups claim it should be illegal to own animals at all, things could get pretty deep pretty fast around here!


Good grief, how strange. This side of the pond it is considered a taboo to even discuss it. (Doesn't mean it isn't going on though, perhaps that will be one of our future moral crises).

Back to Levine, my point, not very well made, is that the law is just the base level for the behaviour of public figures. They are expected to meet higher standards than that.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Fritz Kobus said:


> Thought of both, but didn't think the trousers really are necessary for modesty (more for practicality though) and in some cases can be rather immodest (*I have seen women who must have had to use a shoehorn to get into their pants*).


Yes. It's gone that way. I think the fashion wheel is about to turn though, I've already seen looser trousers on many ladies in the past few months.


----------



## eugeneonagain

KenOC said:


> An odd opinion. *The US is now the oldest continuous government on earth*, possibly excepting Switzerland. Our Constitution may have something to do with that! There are zero factions in the US (so far as I know) calling for it to be replaced. It can be amended of course, and has been from time to time.
> 
> The Constitution came into force in 1788, and the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) in 1791, 226 years ago. It has since been amended 17 times, most recently in 1992. Some of these amendments are quite substantial and include items such as the basis for federal taxation, freedom and citizenship for former slaves, and female suffrage.


False. There are several contenders much older. Often people try to disqualify governments because of transition from monarchy to republic, even though they have remained essentially the same. Also minor legal changes, but all those amendments are also alterations that disrupt the continuity. Not to mention the civil War where states declared secession!

England's slow transition with essentially the same system is far older. 1600s. We had cromwell and a civil war, but did I mention you also had a massive civil war?

It's not such an odd opinion really is it?


----------



## Flamme

Tulse said:


> It doesn't.00000000000000


WE in Europe especially eastern, see it like that...It seems political correctness and ''social marxism'' are running amok in good ole US of A and spreading onwards throughout the world sometimes even with heavy political, economic and military pressure...And its only a US thing, 90 % of the world is like wtf, when presented these new pinnacles of ''democracy'' and ''liberation of spirit''...


----------



## eugeneonagain

Flamme said:


> WE in Europe especially eastern, see it like that...It seems political correctness and ''social marxism'' are running amok in good ole US of A and spreading onwards throughout the world sometimes even with heavy political, economic and military pressure...And its only a US thing, 90 % of the world is like wtf, when presented these new pinnacles of ''democracy'' and ''liberation of spirit''...


You're late to the party. This delusional fantasy has already been put to bed.


----------



## Flamme

Oh at first i was ''confused'' now im delusional...So predictable, lowering the discussion on ad hominem level, who would thunk?!:lol:


----------



## eugeneonagain

Flamme said:


> Oh at first i was ''confused'' now im delusional...So predictable, lowering the discussion on ad hominem level, who would thunk?!:lol:


Not quite. I'm rubbishing the idea. For it to be "ad hominem" it would have to have been an original thought rather than a lazy repetition of a falsehood.:lol:


----------



## bz3

Tulse said:


> Good grief, how strange. This side of the pond it is considered a taboo to even discuss it. (Doesn't mean it isn't going on though, perhaps that will be one of our future moral crises).
> 
> Back to Levine, my point, not very well made, is that the law is just the base level for the behaviour of public figures. They are expected to meet higher standards than that.


I saw an article about a refugee giving a pony a poke at a petting zoo in Germany just a month ago. Maybe it's cultural!


----------



## bz3

eugeneonagain said:


> It's not such an odd opinion really is it?


It is. Even if one agrees with your caveats about older governments, virtually every constitution written after the American one used it as a model. Now today, particularly in Africa and other developing nations, they have gone in for some of the more 'enlightened' ideas in various European constitutions - like guaranteeing education and health care and "human dignity" in a legal document. So-called "positive rights" that generally infringe upon "negative rights," though the distinction becomes at times clunky.

Maybe you like those "positive rights," but nothing is more hilarious than a nation like Zimbabwe guaranteeing health care and "human dignity" while engaging in ethnic genocide and abject poverty. I'll give it non-American constitutions - they allow for more jokes!


----------



## eugeneonagain

bz3 said:


> It is. Even if one agrees with your caveats about older governments, virtually every constitution written after the American one used it as a model. Now today, particularly in Africa and other developing nations, they have gone in for some of the more 'enlightened' ideas in various European constitutions - like guaranteeing education and health care and "human dignity" in a legal document. So-called "positive rights" that generally infringe upon "negative rights," though the distinction becomes at times clunky.
> 
> Maybe you like those "positive rights," but nothing is more hilarious than a nation like Zimbabwe guaranteeing health care and "human dignity" while engaging in ethnic genocide and abject poverty. I'll give it non-American constitutions - they allow for more jokes!


It's still not. I'll give you one thing, you Americans are excellent at imagining the importance of your influence, thinking everyone around the globe is trying to use you as a model for dragging themselves into modern civilisation. Give it a rest. Is there any other nation that goes on about its constitution as much as the U.S.A?

"Virtually every constitution written after the American one used it as a model" is something you made up just now; it isn't factual. 
I'll tell you what's even more hilarious than Zimbabwe's failure, but also more obscene, is how the American constitution can list all its noble citizen's rights guaranteeing health and happiness etc while huge swathes rot physically and mentally for want of healthcare that is actually there, if only you can stump up the hard cash for it. Same for education.

Parading the lack of social well-being as 'negative/positive rights' (nonsense badly paraphrased from Isaiah Berlin) based in 'freedom' is a convenient way for holders of power to shirk any responsible for anything at all. The problem is particularly marked in the U.S. constitution which makes grandiose, but vague, meaningless claims, but actually practices real law in a similar way to the U.K. where the 'unwritten constitution' is based in 'law in practice'. We don't end up in idiotic conflicts about things like 'gun laws' based upon written guarantees and people bawling about their rights being infringed. In fact U.K. law in practice allows a more fluid response based upon facts-of-the-moment and sense.

If you have to keep amending something it means it isn't meaningful and that silly constitution is really a relic of a lot of giddy historical nation-builders.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

eugeneonagain said:


> It's still not. I'll give you one thing, you Americans are excellent at imagining the importance of your influence, thinking everyone around the globe is trying to use you as a model for dragging themselves into modern civilisation. Give it a rest. Is there any other nation that goes on about its constitution as much as the U.S.A?
> 
> "Virtually every constitution written after the American one used it as a model" is something you made up just now; it isn't factual.
> I'll tell you what's even more hilarious than Zimbabwe's failure, but also more obscene, is how the American constitution can list all its noble citizen's rights guaranteeing health and happiness etc while huge swathes rot physically and mentally for want of healthcare that is actually there, if only you can stump up the hard cash for it. Same for education.
> 
> Parading the lack of social well-being as 'negative/positive rights' (nonsense badly paraphrased from Isaiah Berlin) based in 'freedom' is a convenient way for holders of power to shirk any responsible for anything at all. The problem is particularly marked in the U.S. constitution which makes grandiose, but vague, meaningless claims, but actually practices real law in a similar way to the U.K. where the 'unwritten constitution' is based in 'law in practice'. We don't end up in idiotic conflicts about things like 'gun laws' based upon written guarantees and people bawling about their rights being infringed. In fact U.K. law in practice allows a more fluid response based upon facts-of-the-moment and sense.
> 
> If you have to keep amending something it means it isn't meaningful and that silly constitution is really a relic of a lot of giddy historical nation-builders.


And thank you Britain for wanting to take guns from the colonist gave us the 2nd amendment the true way to limit any government leader in the US from going to far or face an armed uprising.


----------



## bz3

eugeneonagain said:


> It's still not. I'll give you one thing, you Americans are excellent at imagining the importance of your influence, thinking everyone around the globe is trying to use you as a model for dragging themselves into modern civilisation. Give it a rest. Is there any other nation that goes on about its constitution as much as the U.S.A?


So you announce your dislike for Americans and what (you think) they believe in. Got it.



eugeneonagain said:


> "Virtually every constitution written after the American one used it as a model" is something you made up just now; it isn't factual.


It is factual. It's waned in recent years but it's inarguable. Bad way to start your argument by stating flagrant falsehoods. And that was literally the first Google result, I encourage you to do your own research if you want because I already have.



eugeneonagain said:


> I'll tell you what's even more hilarious than Zimbabwe's failure, but also more obscene, is how the American constitution can list all its noble citizen's rights guaranteeing health and happiness etc while huge swathes rot physically and mentally for want of healthcare that is actually there, if only you can stump up the hard cash for it. Same for education.


What a shocker, you don't understand the US Constitution or what it guarantees. Not seeing how this discussion will be fruitful when you clearly don't have any idea what you're talking about. No where is "health and happiness" guaranteed in the US Constitution.



eugeneonagain said:


> Parading the lack of social well-being as 'negative/positive rights' (nonsense badly paraphrased from Isaiah Berlin) based in 'freedom' is a convenient way for holders of power to shirk any responsible for anything at all. The problem is particularly marked in the U.S. constitution which makes grandiose, but vague, meaningless claims, but actually practices real law in a similar way to the U.K. where the 'unwritten constitution' is based in 'law in practice'. We don't end up in idiotic conflicts about things like 'gun laws' based upon written guarantees and people bawling about their rights being infringed. In fact U.K. law in practice allows a more fluid response based upon facts-of-the-moment and sense.
> 
> If you have to keep amending something it means it isn't meaningful and that silly constitution is really a relic of a lot of giddy historical nation-builders.


So it seems now that you don't even understand how the US Constition functions in the hierarchy of law in the US. So let's review,

- you don't know what the US Constitution guarantees
- you don't understand how the hierarchical scheme in the US law works
- you _hate_ that the US Constitution is a limiting structure, rather than a provisional one

I think it's just the jealous ex-monarchist in you. I'll concede you do monarchy and authoritarianism better than us, no argument there.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Johnnie Burgess said:


> And thank you Britain for wanting to take guns from the colonist gave us the 2nd amendment the true way to limit any government leader in the US from going to far or face an armed uprising.


Pure fantasy. The official army in the wrong hands won't be matched by little groups of middle-aged men with little guns. It's no longer the 18th century. Modern tyranny is enacted by PR and bureaucracy and it's power is in appearing to be official, rational policy. It's precisely how these 'how could it happen' moments of tyranny occur.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

eugeneonagain said:


> Pure fantasy. The official army in the wrong hands won't be matched by little groups of middle-aged men with little guns. It's no longer the 18th century. Modern tyranny is enacted by PR and bureaucracy and it's power is in appearing to be official, rational policy. It's precisely how these 'how could it happen' moments of tyranny occur.


You forget there are millions of Americans between 25 to 45 who have combat experience and would take up arms against anyone who goes against the constitution.


----------



## eugeneonagain

bz3 said:


> So you announce your dislike for Americans and what (you think) they believe in. Got it.


I don't dislike Americans in general, I'm just correcting your falsehoods. So no, you haven't "got it".



bz3 said:


> It is factual. It's waned in recent years but it's inarguable. Bad way to start your argument by stating flagrant falsehoods. And that was literally the first Google result, I encourage you to do your own research if you want because I already have.


Inarguable. What foolishness. If you've actually looked at constitutions around the world, you'll see they vary wildly and reflect local requirements rather than grand enlightenment 'ideas'. Them saying they used yours as a 'model' is mere lip-service. That constitution itself takes inspiration from the (now rather worthless Magna Carta). I really don't care what PR articles you dig up on the internet. That's not "research".



bz3 said:


> What a shocker, you don't understand the US Constitution or what it guarantees. Not seeing how this discussion will be fruitful when you clearly don't have any idea what you're talking about. No where is "health and happiness" guaranteed in the US Constitution.
> 
> I do understand it, that's why I can criticise it. You'll need to work a bit harder though, when I say 'health and happiness' I'm not directly quoting from anything in that document. What I'm actually saying is that despite all the claims in the collection of 'founding documents' things don't seem to have worked out all that well with basic needs for the citizenry.
> 
> 
> 
> bz3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it seems now that you don't even understand how the US Constition functions in the hierarchy of law in the US. So let's review,
> 
> - you don't know what the US Constitution guarantees
> - you don't understand how the hierarchical scheme in the US law works
> - you _hate_ that the US Constitution is a limiting structure, rather than a provisional one
> 
> I think it's just the jealous ex-monarchist in you. I'll concede you do monarchy and authoritarianism better than us, no argument there.
> 
> 
> 
> You can review as many of your self-created falsehoods as you want chief. I'm entirely uninterested in your black and white responses masquerading as the firm hand of 'scholarship'. That last sentence is a complete joke. The most authoritarian nation in the Western world, masked under clever marketing, is the U.S. I've also never seen a non-monarchist nation so desperate for a monarchy without the name monarchy.
Click to expand...


----------



## KenOC




----------



## eugeneonagain

Johnnie Burgess said:


> You forget there are millions of Americans between 25 to 45 who have combat experience and would take up arms against anyone who goes against the constitution.


Really? Well why hasn't it happened yet then? Good governance and the constitution has been contravened on so many occasions.

It only seems to be a particular sort of mindset thinking this and all those with it seem to be generally content with the current government and especially the president, who acts most contrary to the ethos of the constitution. It's quite telling that this mentality was at its height during the Obama administration; the truth is that 'tyranny' in modern North America means 'the government and it's policies that don't agree with my views', rather than an actual tyranny.


----------



## eugeneonagain

KenOC said:


>


I expect the cup of coffee to be bigger.

I'll tell you what, I was aghast to learn that a 'Full English Breakfast' was actually a concept we took from the U.S. in the early 20th century. I give you your due.


----------



## mmsbls

The thread has veered into pure politics and some posts are a bit heated. We're temporarily closing the thread so people can get back to the topic which includes James Levine and possibly other musicians.


----------



## mmsbls

The thread is now open again. Please make sure your comments are focused on Levine's behavior, similar behavior among musicians, or topics related to music. Do not post purely political comments.


----------



## Flamme

LOL eugene i thought you were a Yank?! 
Back at topic, this all started from Weinstein...Im not saying he is not smug perv movie maker but i wonder how he managed to put his hands on almost every actress working in holly-wood now...?! According to media he is portrayed like a supernatural villain, almost a Satan in nature...


----------



## eugeneonagain

mmsbls said:


> The thread is now open again. Please make sure your comments are focused on Levine's behavior, similar behavior among musicians, or topics related to music. Do not post purely political comments.


It may as well remain closed if those are the boundaries. The thread addresses his alleged sexual predation and that very topic is a socio-political topic. There's no way the discussion can be limited to music, it's got very little to do with the music (except perhaps _facing_ it).

Hasn't everything that can be said in this thread already been said?


----------



## amfortas

eugeneonagain said:


> Hasn't everything that can be said in this thread already been said?


Well . . . I like your hat.


----------



## wkasimer

Apparently, another Met conductor has conducted his last performance there:

https://nypost.com/2017/12/16/another-met-opera-conductor-accused-of-sexual-misconduct/


----------



## eugeneonagain

amfortas said:


> Well . . . I like your hat.


That's something positive at least.


----------



## fluteman

Unlike some posters in this thread, I am a lawyer, and am familiar with a criminal defendant's or suspect's rights, at least in the US. The rich and famous can suffer the disadvantage of immediately being put to trial and convicted in the press, thanks in part to relatively liberal American laws regarding freedom of speech that nevertheless are constantly challenged and are under especially severe attack at the moment. But in my opinion that is more than counterbalanced by the immense power of the wealthy to use the legal system to their advantage, along with the numerous other privileges they enjoy.

I know nothing about the allegations against James Levine. But I well remember the allegations published in the NY Times and elsewhere against Johannes Somary, a wealthy and prominent Swiss conductor who came to the US to teach at the Horace Mann School, a prestigious private school in New York City, that came to light after he died. Sexual abuse allegations against other Horace Mann faculty members in some cases resulted in their termination, but Somary appeared to enjoy immunity from reprisal, despite the reported fact that one of his student / victims committed suicide.

The question we need to ask is not so much about Levine as it is about the Met, and whether it is permitting the existence of an institutional environment where such abuse is possible. If it is, it will attract predators.


----------



## wkasimer

fluteman said:


> But I well remember the allegations published in the NY Times and elsewhere against Johannes Somary, a wealthy and prominent Swiss conductor who came to the US to teach at the Horace Mann School, a prestigious private school in New York City, that came to light after he died. Sexual abuse allegations against other Horace Mann faculty members in some cases resulted in their termination, but Somary appeared to enjoy immunity from reprisal, despite the reported fact that one of his student / victims committed suicide.


It's kind of difficult to terminate the employment of someone who's already been terminated by a higher authority....


----------



## fluteman

wkasimer said:


> It's kind of difficult to terminate the employment of someone who's already been terminated by a higher authority....


Obviously. But he was on the faculty there for many years, and allegedly abused students there for many years, with no consequences, even as some other less prominent faculty members also accused of sexual abuse or rape were terminated. My comment was directed more at the institutions that allow this behavior to continue and even thrive for decades, rather than the particular alleged wrongdoers involved. And I should add that based on what I've read, in recent years the Horace Mann School has addressed the issue and the sexual abuse complaints against its faculty have ceased.


----------



## Larkenfield

Violinists Nigel Kennedy on the abuse and the betrayal of trust in schools...


----------



## amfortas

We have to assume that adults in power over young people always carries the potential for abuse--and that protections should always be in place.


----------



## dieter

Well put. I cannot agree more.


----------



## Pugg

amfortas said:


> We have to assume that adults in power over young people always carries the potential for abuse--and that protections should always be in place.


So all parents should warn their children, mine did for sure and I was not aloud to be an altar boy, great inside in retrospect.


----------



## realdealblues

I've heard rumors about James Levine for over 20 years but it hasn't stopped me from listening to his Brahms Symphonies with the Chicago Symphony or recommending them to others as one of the best cycles ever recorded. 

I know there are folks on here who won't or can't separate the individual from their art and that's fine. A lot of people won't listen to Wagner because of his anti-semitism and that's their choice. 

There are lots of people who do reprehensible things, actors, painters, musicians, architects, etc. and while I may not like the person or their beliefs or what they've done in their personal lives, it doesn't effect my ability to enjoy their artwork. 

If I look at a painting, I judge it based on if I like the painting or not. Not whether I like the artist or not. In most cases I could really care less, other than if I like a form of artwork from someone, I might like something else they did. Same thing with music, films, books, plays, architecture, etc. I don't have to like an individual to enjoy something they did in an artistic form.

So, if Levine is found guilty, then he's found guilty. I'll wait for the courts to do what they do. In the end it won't change my listening habits.


----------



## amfortas

realdealblues said:


> If I look at a painting, I judge it based on if I like the painting or not. Not whether I like the artist or not. In most cases I could really care less, other than if I like a form of artwork from someone, I might like something else they did. Same thing with music, films, books, plays, architecture, etc. I don't have to like an individual to enjoy something they did in an artistic form.


I think the type of artwork can make a difference for some people. I suspect it does for me.

Watching an actor, there can be a sense that we're getting the person themselves, rather than an artistic creation at one remove from his or her personality. So while I might have a difficult time sitting through a film starring an actor I believed to be a reprehensible human being, I'd have less of a problem listening to a recording of music conducted by such a person.

But maybe that's just me.


----------



## realdealblues

amfortas said:


> I think the type of artwork can make a difference for some people. I suspect it does for me.
> 
> Watching an actor, there can be a sense that we're getting the person themselves, rather than an artistic creation at one remove from his or her personality. So while I might have a difficult time sitting through a film starring an actor I believed to be a reprehensible human being, I'd have less of a problem listening to a recording of music conducted by such a person.
> 
> But maybe that's just me.


That's fine, I know a few people who started hating Mel Gibson because of his drunken Anti-Semitic rant. It doesn't stop me form watching Mad Max or Lethal Weapon. Jeffery Jones plead no contest to paying a 14 year old boy to pose in X-rated Photos. It doesn't stop me from watching Amadeus or Ferris Bueller's Day Off or Beetlejuice.


----------



## amfortas

realdealblues said:


> That's fine, I know a few people who started hating Mel Gibson because of his drunken Anti-Semitic rant. It doesn't stop me form watching Mad Max or Lethal Weapon.


I'd still watch Mad Max, too. And I never wanted to watch Lethal Weapon in the first place.


----------



## Radames

Mel did a pretty good violent thriller last year called Blood Father. I had no trouble watching it. His hair transplant looks pretty good. And he stays in great shape. I don't care that he said some awful things while drunk. My father did that sometimes. bid deal.


----------



## ldiat

this today on the face book from the NYT
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/arts/music/james-levine-metropolitan-opera.html


----------



## Pugg

ldiat said:


> this today on the face book from the NYT
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/arts/music/james-levine-metropolitan-opera.html


How the mighty have fallen.


----------



## ldiat

2 hours ago face book:
BREAKING: James Levine sues the Met Opera and accuses it of "cynically hijacking the good will of the #MeToo movement" to force him out


----------



## KenOC

Oh boy, a good dust-up. Bring on the lawyers!


----------



## Becca

There is no way that will ever end up in court as both sides have far too much to lose, although probably Levine more so than the Met, especially if the Met board dumps Gelb. Expect some quiet, sealed settlement.


----------



## KenOC

Becca said:


> There is no way that will ever end up in court as both sides have far too much to lose, although probably Levine more so than the Met, especially if the Met board dumps Gelb. Expect some quiet, sealed settlement.


At his age, James Levine has only one thing left to lose. Anyway, here's the story.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/n...es-met-opera-sexual-misconduct-ouster-1094874


----------



## Pugg

KenOC said:


> At his age, James Levine has only one thing left to lose. Anyway, here's the story.
> 
> https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/n...es-met-opera-sexual-misconduct-ouster-1094874


I think it's so said, just like that Lance Armstrong type, denial until you break. 
Stop it James, your time is up.


----------



## Bellinilover

Radames said:


> Mel did a pretty good violent thriller last year called Blood Father. I had no trouble watching it. His hair transplant looks pretty good. And he stays in great shape. I don't care that he said some awful things while drunk. My father did that sometimes. bid deal.


_In vino veritas._

Personally, I can't stand the sight of Mel Gibson. I've never liked him, his movies, or his views.


----------



## Radames

Pugg said:


> I think it's so said, just like that Lance Armstrong type, denial until you break.
> Stop it James, your time is up.


Has anyone read all the gory details that the Boston Globe published? 
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/03/02/cleveland/cn2Sathz0EMJcdpYouoPjM/story.html#comments

This is different than with Armstrong though. There were no actual rules against what Levine was doing at the time - like with college professors having sex with undergraduates. That's STILL allowed. In 10 years when it's forbidden will we look back on the people doing it today as abusive sex perverts? Probably. Looks like everyone in the Levine case was over the age of consent too. So the guy's a kinky gay horndog. So what?

Slippeddisc covered this too:
http://slippedisc.com/2018/03/boston-lifts-the-lid-on-james-levines-teenage-sex-cultists/

Some good comments there too. Mark:


> It was the 60s, actually. I am an attorney, and my mentor in the beginning of my career was a very famous corporate lawyer who went to college in the 60s. He laughs at all the Levine stories and says that compared to what was going on on college campuses in those days, the accusations against Levine sound like a rowdy Sunday school. For crying out loud, even in my day I've been to some wild frat parties, where people grabbed anything that had a pulse (if they were drunk enough, pulse was optional …)


And this one from Dempsy:



> James Levine has produced his greatest work ever: American liberalism destroying itself. The "intelligentsia" (one need only look to the New York Times to understand the quotation marks) has drank the feminist Kool-Aid, and now every man's balls are on the chopping block, for any misbehavior, no matter how slight, no matter how long ago, even beyond statutes of limitations.
> 
> My favorite accusoer, the 16 year old (paraphrase): "I didn't know how wrong it was until 30 years later when I went to therapy."
> 
> In 100 years, the history of psychology will have to contend with its manufacture of victims, and James Levine will be given a little plaque in memory of the sex panics that roiled America from 1980 to 2030.


We are judging people's past behavior based on today's views of morality. You can make anyone look bad that way - George Washington the slaver! Thomas Jefferson - slaver and rapist!!


----------



## Radames

wkasimer said:


> Apparently, another Met conductor has conducted his last performance there:
> 
> https://nypost.com/2017/12/16/another-met-opera-conductor-accused-of-sexual-misconduct/


Thought I would also reply to this. It is a totally false allegation by a nutter.



> Dozens of New York musicians have contacted Slipped Disc to argue that the allegations of sexual abuse against the Met staff conductor Joseph Colaneri are unfounded.


http://slippedisc.com/2017/12/doubts-are-cast-on-latest-new-york-allegations/


----------



## amfortas

Radames said:


> We are judging people's past behavior based on today's views of morality. You can make anyone look bad that way - George Washington the slaver! Thomas Jefferson - slaver and rapist!!


Absolutely! When are we finally going to understand that, even if we're squeamish about slavery now, it was perfectly fine back then.


----------



## SixFootScowl

amfortas said:


> Absolutely! When are we finally going to understand that, even if we're squeamish about slavery now, it was perfectly *fine* back then.


Well I don't know about "fine," but it was perfectly "acceptable" back then. But I think that is what you actually meant.


----------



## amfortas

Fritz Kobus said:


> Well I don't know about "fine," but it was perfectly "acceptable" back then. But I think that is what you actually meant.


Not exactly.


----------



## wkasimer

Radames said:


> Thought I would also reply to this. It is a totally false allegation by a nutter.
> 
> http://slippedisc.com/2017/12/doubts-are-cast-on-latest-new-york-allegations/


I'd edit or delete my post, but that seems to be impossible...


----------



## Radames

wkasimer said:


> I'd edit or delete my post, but that seems to be impossible...


The NY Post never should have published it. Lots of fake news out there. Everyone is looking for a juicy story.


----------



## Pugg

Radames said:


> The NY Post never should have published it. Lots of fake news out there. Everyone is looking for a juicy story.


Where there's smoke, there is fire.


----------



## Radames

Pugg said:


> Where there's smoke, there is fire.


Or a smokescreen. Notice the woman who accused Colaneri remains anonymous. No one can even face their accuser anymore. How can someone defend himself against anonymous accusations?


----------



## Merl

Some news from the Levine case.....

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/aug/07/conductor-james-levine-settles-lawsuit-over-sexual-misconduct-allegations


----------



## Larkenfield

...............


----------



## Rogerx

The Met's former music director was paid $3.5 million to drop his unfair dismissal lawsuit and walk away quietly, according to leaks to a pair of NY Times reporters.

Levine was fired in March 2018 for a history of alleged sexual misconduct.

Nobody comes out of this well. The money he was paid came from well-intentioned donors who expected it would go towards producing opera.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/20/...aAowxDDCDnJyHImWgnOuT4VWHHDP5_F2CU37vESTuxBYQ


----------



## Rogerx

Zubin Metha : James Levine was ruined by the U.S.A media

The veteran conductor, 84, opening tonight at La Scala, has been sharing some retro views with Corriere della Serra.

Among other things:

‘Leave the blacklists to American puritanism. Levine has been ruined by US media. Domingo had to leave Los Angeles Opera, which was nothing before he came. And all because of complaints from failed artists after 30 years . That sounds like revenge.’


----------



## amfortas

Rogerx said:


> Zubin Metha : James Levine was ruined by the U.S.A media
> 
> The veteran conductor, 84, opening tonight at La Scala, has been sharing some retro views with Corriere della Serra.
> 
> Among other things:
> 
> 'Leave the blacklists to American puritanism. Levine has been ruined by US media. Domingo had to leave Los Angeles Opera, which was nothing before he came. And all because of complaints from failed artists after 30 years. That sounds like revenge.'


It sounds like a conductor who isn't very enlightened about sexual harassment.


----------



## Rogerx

amfortas said:


> It sounds like a conductor who isn't very enlightened about sexual harassment.


I am taking no sites, just posting a quote as you can see.


----------



## amfortas

Rogerx said:


> I am taking no sites, just posting a quote as you can see.


I do see that; thank you for sharing the quote.


----------

