# James Levine deserves Talk Classical's Opprobrium, NOT Adoration



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

All of you crowing about Levine's artistic greatness should just be honest and post this disclaimer with all of your tributes and top-ten lists:

"I, hypocritical Talk Classical poster, hereby state that I am crowing about James Levine right now because I don't give a FLYING FART IN THE WIND about all of the dozens of young men, whose lives and careers were destroyed _as teenagers_ by James Levine's relentless acts of sexual predation, because he was "such a great artist." It's fine for empowered and privileged men (as long as they're white and wealthy) to use young people as sexual consumables-to be discarded after use-free from consequences. Don't ask, don't tell."

Levine's reign as a top-tier sexual predator of teen-aged boys was an "open secret" for years and years, widely rumored about but also widely known to be true. Yes, it took the #metoo era for the media and wider public to finally, after decades, take the allegations seriously. But it happened, make no mistake. The allegations have the truth backing them. The denials are denials of the truth.

But as usual, the white knights come charging in with their "I don't want to hear about this" and "eww this isn't the National Enquirer" and "eww this is icky but Jimmy made the Met so great" and turn a blind eye to that which is very well-known all through the world of professional classical music:

James Levine was a sexual predator.

We know exactly how institutions such as the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts and James Levine get away with these crimes. It's happening again, all over again, just the same, right here on Talk Classical.

*For shame.*


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

The problem with these allegiations is that one does not know whom to trust. On one hand, there are sexual predators that are repulsive, on the other hand, there are people trying to get their 5 minutes of fame or extract some money from accusing a celebrity. The American sexual morale is also a little hysterical, unable to differentiate between relatively harmless behavior (which might be inapropriate) on one hand and dangerous things like rape, lumping all of it under the "sexual harassment" label. If Levine really did destroy careers and was a sexual predator, then I agree he should be shuned.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

How many people here have any stake in this beyond armchair moralizing? The world already found out a few years ago that he abused his powers. And why was it an open secret for so long? You're a member of the professional classical music world. Don't beat up on a bunch of classical music listeners who were kept in the dark for decades by those in the business. And who don't want to go stomping in the mud after Levine's death. Hold your own accountable.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Since an earlier thread on this topic has apparently been shut down, it's likely this will be as well. If you have a comment to add, better do it quickly.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

starthrower said:


> How many people here have any stake in this beyond armchair moralizing? The world already found out a few years ago that he abused his powers. And why was it an open secret for so long? You're a member of the professional classical music world. Don't beat up on a bunch of classical music listeners who were kept in the dark for decades by those in the business. And who don't want to go stomping in the mud after Levine's death. Hold your own accountable.


most people are sheep and are scared. The situation is similar in academia. I can't tell you how many narcissistic sociopaths I met in academia among the professors. These people have too much power, they have the ability to make or break your career, and they are almost unassailable. If you complain about their abuses and misbehavior, the academia will close ranks, and the accuser will get punished. It is probably similar in these orchestras.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

amfortas said:


> Since an earlier thread on this topic has apparently been shut down, it's likely this will be as well. If you have a comment to add, better do it quickly.


Yeah. I don't know why the last one vanished. When I last looked at it it was being quite well-behaved, given the topic. But perhaps it went AWOL when I wasn't looking.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Eclectic Al said:


> Yeah. I don't know why the last one vanished. When I last looked at it it was being quite well-behaved, given the topic. But perhaps it went AWOL when I wasn't looking.


It should be back, forgot to toggle something after editing it.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Eclectic Al said:


> Yeah. I don't know why the last one vanished. When I last looked at it it was being quite well-behaved, given the topic. But perhaps it went AWOL when I wasn't looking.


Moderators had deleted some of the posts--including one of my own, which corrected misinformation about the nature of the allegations against Levine. Then the thread as a whole vanished.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

For the record, I consider Mr. Levine's conducting largely uninspired and boring.

Once that is said, why should be incompatible that he was a great conductor, even the greatest conductor in the world, *and* a sexual predator?.

He could be these two things, and many things more. It's human nature.

About the sexual predator part, this is something that he should be accountable before a court of justice. Like any other citizen. And during the trial, it would be immaterial the quality of his conducting. In the same way, the fact that he is a sexual predator, it's irrelevant for the quality of his conducting.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

I don't know what Levine got up to. Let's assume he was indeed a dangerous and amoral sexual predator.
What might prompt someone, though, not immediately to accept that he was?
- People do make false allegations sometimes.
- In the UK, at least, the police were instructed to believe allegations, rather than to take them seriously and investigate.
- There are clear examples of the police seeking to publicise names of the accused, knowing that this will prompt others to come forward (if the accused is famous), and if enough come forward then there will be similarity in the stories of some of them. Focus purely on those and you will appear to have a pattern of offending which might convince a jury. This will be helped if you can put a bit of detail in the information you publicise.

Who are the victims of this?
- People who are accused and their names dragged through the mud when they were innocent
- People who were victims, and they are not believed, because other examples become known where false accusations were believed.

Who benefit?
- People who are offenders, and get away with it, because victims are not believed
- Activists who want it to appear that the world is full of horrible people, if that suits their cause.

Who is to blame for that?
- People who argue that you should just believe accusations, rather than investigate them fairly, because they are the ones who bring the investigative system into disrepute.

It's a sad world.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Art Rock said:


> It should be back, forgot to toggle something after editing it.


OK. No problem.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast (Jun 3, 2020)

You do you, and try not to impose your views on what others should do. I will continue to listen to his recordings because at the end of the day, the only one that suffers from not being able to enjoy his art is me and no one is the worse for it. I sincerely doubt that the few fractions of cents that he gets from my spotify streaming make any difference now, if they ever did. And also, even if he was benefiting from that, perhaps the people that control his estate now could set up a fund to help victims of abuse. There's also this thing called the death of the author you know, so I'm not enjoying his life, I'm not savoring the horror he put those young men through, I'm just listening to his music (which is not even his btw). It's devastating what he did, and perhaps justice wasn't made (because everywhere on earth judges are corrupt or inept or, simply, arbitrary due to the nature of law), but in the end, what does that have to do with us the listeners?


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

“The first rule about James Levine is you don't talk about James Levine.” “The second rule about James Levine is you don't talk about James Levine.”


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Knorf said:


> All of you crowing about Levine's artistic greatness should just be honest and post this disclaimer with all of your tributes and top-ten lists:
> 
> "I, hypocritical Talk Classical poster, hereby state that I am crowing about James Levine right now because I don't give a FLYING FART IN THE WIND about all of the dozens of young men, whose lives and careers were destroyed _as teenagers_ by James Levine's relentless acts of sexual predation, because he was "such a great artist." It's fine for empowered and privileged men (as long as they're white and wealthy) to use young people as sexual consumables-to be discarded after use-free from consequences. Don't ask, don't tell."
> 
> ...


The ones primarily at fault if your allegations are to be believed, are his peers in the professional classical music community. Why blame TC? If Levine's peers let him get away with this behavior for decades, how can members of an anonymous Internet forum be more accountable?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

While in no way condoning what Levine did, I have some sympathy for the guy. He grew up at a time when being a gay man was still somewhat taboo. To protect his image and dreams he had to suppress this part of him. Can you imagine the internal torture of having to live like that? He wasn't alone: there were plenty of actors, politicians, religious leaders and other public figures who led secret lives not because they wanted to, but because they had to. I'm no psychologist but I've read enough to know that living like that has got to screw with your brain. Before anyone castigates Levine maybe the Biblical injunction of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" should give us pause. And keep in mind that there are many other famous people who have done some really bad things yet they either get a pass or even joke about it. James Levine was a flawed man, as we all are. I just find it deeply sad to think that a man as talented as he would spend his time lurking about in public parks at night looking for a gay hookup. Maybe if society were more tolerant, accepting and open he wouldn't have to live that way.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Knorf said:


> (post snipped)
> 
> [/B]


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall that you exhibited the same level of moral outrage while Levine was alive, and theoretically able to respond. Now that he's dead, such a diatribe amounts to little more than performative virtue-signaling, a way to demonstrate your moral superiority.

Whether or not I think that Levine was a manipulative, exploitative shmuck or not is immaterial. I won't go as far as to say "De mortuis nihil nisi bonum", but if you have evidence proving any of it, you should have said so when he was still around. If you have such evidence, and didn't share it with the appropriate authorities, then you're responsible for that behavior.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

This is so hard. I totally get you Knorfy and you're right. I enjoyed many of his recordings over the years (unfortunately he made some crackers) and I only found out about his seedy activities when the allegations came to light and he was suspended from the Met. I really had no idea about this as it was hidden from the public and I'm not in the know with orchestral gossip. I've been playing his Brahms, Mahler and Schumann cycles for years (plus some others) and have loved the wonderful orchestral playing on those recordings. Churlishly, I could say I've bought all my Levine recordings secondhand so at least say I haven't contributed directly to him but that's really not important. So what do I do with my cherished recordings that he was a part of? Do I bin them? Never play them again? There have been accusations, suspensions and even sackings of orchestral members over the years who have played on recordings I have loved. Should I not play them either? Should I not play any of my Dutoit recordings considering accusations made about him? It's so difficult and I understand why some don't want anything to do with the music he was part of. However part of me thinks that he was just that - a part of that music. He didn't write it, or sing it, play it (he was no Gary Glitter, Michael Jackson). He was the name on the cover and the leader of a huge team who produced an amazing sound. I'm not trying to condone what he did but when I listen to those recordings I'm thinking of the beauty of the sound, not him at all like if I'm listening to Stan the Man's, Bruckner (I'm admiring the music not the man). I have contributed to the Levine recordings thread with a degree of reluctance, with a disclaimer and said similar on that thread. I hope what I've said has not sounded superficial and I'm not trivialising this topic, by any means. If this post sounds confused then it's because I understand what the OP and subsequent posters are saying and it's an uncomfortable decision. For now I'll continue to play these recordings as I have always done and doubt that will change, for now, but I do so with reservations. Perhaps I shouldn't have posted on the Levine thread in hindsight but it's done now. I have to live with myself. I think it's down to others to make the same decision.


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

I don't recall seeing any post where anyone (including myself) condoned Levine's alleged improper conduct, so I would appreciate not using this public forum to talk down to its members.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

CTRL-C 

Works of art are not the same as the people who produce them.

CTRL-V


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Is it just me, but (for example) I have a nice collection of Scarlatti sonatas by Pletnev, and various other bits and bobs. (I have little Levine.) I am happy still to play it.
I acquired this before I was aware of any taint.
I wouldn't buy any Pletnev recordings currently, as he may benefit and he has a cloud over him. Is this fair? I don't know, but I don't want to risk providing money to him, in case. I also don't have time to explore the rights and wrongs.
If he was dead, I wouldn't have any problem with buying his recordings again.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I second what Merl has to say above. Levine was by all accounts a bad person. But the recordings are good, and many people besides Levine had a hand in producing them.

Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Don't feel guilty about enjoying your CDs, Merl. A classical recording is about more than the conductor. I only have three myself and thankfully Levine's mug is not on the cover of any of them.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

starthrower said:


> Don't feel guilty about enjoying your CDs, Merl. A classical recording is about more than the conductor. I only have three myself and thankfully Levine's mug is not on the cover of any of them.


I only have a La Boheme recording (and I don't listen to opera, so I don't know where that came from), and a Ma Vlast (which is not a piece I go for much either). That's it.

Phew! I can not listen to them, and claim that I am a good person. Good job I don't have any recordings he did of pieces I listen to a lot, because then I might be a bad person.


----------



## Superflumina (Jun 19, 2020)

mbhaub said:


> While in no way condoning what Levine did, I have some sympathy for the guy. He grew up at a time when being a gay man was still somewhat taboo. To protect his image and dreams he had to suppress this part of him. Can you imagine the internal torture of having to live like that? He wasn't alone: there were plenty of actors, politicians, religious leaders and other public figures who led secret lives not because they wanted to, but because they had to. I'm no psychologist but I've read enough to know that living like that has got to screw with your brain. Before anyone castigates Levine maybe the Biblical injunction of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" should give us pause. And keep in mind that there are many other famous people who have done some really bad things yet they either get a pass or even joke about it. James Levine was a flawed man, as we all are. I just find it deeply sad to think that a man as talented as he would spend his time lurking about in public parks at night looking for a gay hookup. Maybe if society were more tolerant, accepting and open he wouldn't have to live that way.


Not sure if you're joking or not, this man was a rapist who preyed on underage boys, bringing up here that he was gay is tone deaf and wrong.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Superflumina said:


> this man was a rapist who preyed on underage boys,


And you're certain of that because....???


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

"Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Levine, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Levine."


----------



## Ned Low (Jul 29, 2020)

Superflumina said:


> Not sure if you're joking or not, this man was a rapist who preyed on underage boys, bringing up here that he was gay is tone deaf and wrong.


He was basically talking about people who've suppressed their desires including Levine and this intentional act of suppression manifests itself in destructive ways. Now i personally dont think by merely sympathising with Levine's miserable past mbhaub is condoning rape and other sordid acts.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Knorf said:


> *All of you* crowing about Levine's artistic greatness should just be honest and post this disclaimer with all of your tributes and top-ten lists:
> 
> "I, hypocritical Talk Classical poster, hereby state that I am crowing about James Levine right now because I don't give a FLYING FART IN THE WIND about all of the dozens of young men, whose lives and careers were destroyed _as teenagers_ by James Levine's relentless acts of sexual predation, because he was "such a great artist." It's fine for empowered and privileged men (as long as they're white and wealthy) to use young people as sexual consumables-to be discarded after use-free from consequences. Don't ask, don't tell."
> ...


_All_ of us?

In the mid-late 1980s I purchased a CD recording of Tchaikovsky's Sixth Symphony, a work which I had heard previously only on vinyl LP in the readings by Alfred Wallenstein, Mravinsky, Monteux, and Ashkenazy, records still in my collection. The Tchaikovsky symphony was a favorite work of mine at that time, and remains so today. The CD, RCA Red Seal ‎- RCD1-5355, was the first CD version of the symphony I owned. It was a disc I actually purchased prior to owning a playback unit for CDs; I was a late comer to the CD revolution, but I began picking up discs of works I had heard and liked on vinyl. I have since added some two dozen or so versions of the symphony to my collection, several of them critically acclaimed, but none I have ever heard have struck me with the same immediate impact of RCD1-5355, which was conducted by one James Levine.

At the time I purchased the CD I had not known anything much about James Levine except to have heard he was associated largely with opera. I certainly had never met the man or researched his life or spoken with folks who knew him about him or even read a short biography of him. To me, he was the conductor on RCD1-5355, a recording of Tchaikovsky's Sixth Symphony, a work which I cherished and had begun to seek out various interpretations of. The fact that Levine's recording of Tchaikovsky's final symphony is my favorite version of the work of those I've heard has absolutely nothing to do with anything in the man's biography, which I had never read, except that he possessed the musical skills necessary to bring the Chicago Symphony to a particular level of cohesion that allowed the music rendered to be possible. I always attributed the drama of that particular reading, again, my favorite reading of the symphony, to have been _because_ of Levine's experience as a conductor of opera.

So, what part of your disclaimer, quoted above, applies to me?

Checking my Discogs database I see (of those discs I've already catalogued) at least two dozen versions of the Tchaikovsky Sixth, one of which is by James Levine. Checking my Discogs database specifically for James Levine discs (and I believe I've catalogued all of them) I see a handful plus a couple, including discs featuring a symphony by Brahms, two symphonies of Mozart, and Mahler symphonies, and a _Rite of Spring_ which is part of a large box collection of that work. None of the Levine conducted works aside from that Tchaikovsky Sixth have left a permanent impression on me. I obviously have not sought out Levine works (as I have Bernstein, Celibidache, Furtwangler, Ancerl, and several other conductors, of whose recordings I have literally dozens upon dozens).

So what part of your diatribe applies to me?

I do know that I have not purchased a Levine recording since learning of the allegations against him. I also know, though it is none of your business, that I have worked as an advocate for sexually abused children in concerns with the Catholic Diocese. So, how does that equate to one who doesn't give a concern (I won't repeat your apparent low-minded, crude expression) about abused children?

Again, tell me, what part of your disclaimer/diatribe applies to me?

Here's what I wrote in response to the R.I.P. thread. Note that I did not repeat the "R.I.P.":



SONNET CLV said:


> I'm in general agreement with the posters here who were saddened and disgusted by the Levine scandal allegations, but who can still appreciate his music making. The man v. the artist -- two different beings, often enough. One may fail while the other excels. Part of the human condition.
> 
> I treasure one Levine recording, which dates from July 1984. I believe it is still the best ever recording of Tchaikovsky's monumental Sixth Symphony.
> 
> ...


My final comment in that quote is a reference to how I interpret the "meaning" of the symphony. One which, likes Beethoven's Fifth, comments upon a deep trouble, fate knocking at the door, and explores the depths of that anger, struggle, denial, confrontation, leading to a conclusion. Beethoven triumphs. Tchaikovsky does not. Rather Tchaikovsky's struggle leads to his eventual defeat (as I hear this symphony), rendered in that sad music of the closing movement. I suggest that perhaps one can hear Levine's story in that, ending with a crushing demise, and not only for him, but for his victims as well. Perhaps ironies abound in his interpretation. I cannot say. I will maintain, though, that for me this is the favored interpretation. But I will be willing to change my mind upon hearing one that surpasses it. And I have continually been searching for that disc, which is why I currently have several dozen different interpretations in my collection even though I loved the 1984 recording since the late '80s when I first heard it via a new CD deck in my listening room.

Again, and please answer me: what part of your disclaimer applies to me?

Or is your statement simply the rant of a stupid person?


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

I'm assuming that since Tchaikovsky had sexual relations with underage boys then we should never listen to Tchaikovsky's music.

Wagner was massively anti-Semitic so he's out.

Haydn and Mozart both had extra-marital affairs...done with them.

Beethoven stole his sister-in-law's own child...bye Ludwig.

Brahms had sex with prostitutes...cancel him.

I could go on, but I shan't.


----------



## Superflumina (Jun 19, 2020)

wkasimer said:


> And you're certain of that because....???


More than 4 men separately came forward with the allegations and it had been known for decades but was never investigated until 2017.


----------



## Superflumina (Jun 19, 2020)

Ned Low said:


> He was basically talking about people who's suppressed their desires including Levine and this intentional act of suppression manifests itself in destructive ways. Now i personally dont think by merely sympathising with Levine's miserable past mbhaub is condoing rape and other sordid acts.


His past doesn't excuse his actions.


----------



## Superflumina (Jun 19, 2020)

I'm not saying "don't listen to James Levine recordings", especially since he wasn't the only person involved in them. I'm talking about the person, it's up to each individual to decide if they want to listen to his recordings and I'm not condemning those who do.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast (Jun 3, 2020)

Superflumina said:


> it's up to each individual to decide if they want to listen to his recordings and I'm not condemning those who do.


That's precisely the point for me. Each person may have different philosophies towards this subject of separating the art from the artist (I strongly side with those who do separate), but I cannot understand a fellow member chastising a whole community, or a few individuals, because we didn't stop listening to levine the second it was known to the public that he was a sexual predator (or won't ever stop doing it, for that matter).


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I wouldn't dream of trashing Knorf for his OP as what he said was sincere, from the heart and he obviously feels disgusted about this as do others who are in agreement with him. He's a good friend and we often agree but this one is more difficult for me as I've enjoyed some Levine recordings for so long and to discourage others from buying or streaming these recordings might actually be counter-productive as Levine won't profit from sales (unless you believe in some sort of afterlife) but the innocent people he's left behind would. I hope others read all the comments on here and, as Superflumina has just said and I said previously, decide for themselves. Please think carefully before you post here and try and understand others'points of view of so that this thread doesn't end up as a flame war and is shut down or, even worse, people start getting banned.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Is it illegal for me to listen to any music conducted by Levine? 

Is it welcoming for me to go into your home and tell you and your family what you should/should not listen to? 

Will listening to Levine's art turn me into a perverted person?

So, if you want to make a statement and protest about sexual abuse, there are many other rightful and appropriate places to do so that will be more impactful than here at TC. 

It's the same with Wagner, von Karajan, maybe Bruckner, maybe Schubert, maybe whoever else. Pathetic.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast (Jun 3, 2020)

Merl said:


> I wouldn't dream of trashing Knorf for his OP as what he said was sincere, from the heart and he obviously feels disgusted about this as do others who are in agreement with him. He's a good friend and we often agree but this one is more difficult for me as I've enjoyed some Levine recordings for so long and to discourage others from buying or streaming these recordings might actually be counter-productive as Levine won't profit from sales (unless you believe in some sort of afterlife) but the innocent people he's left behind would. I hope others read all the comments on here and, as Superflumina has just said and I said previously, decide for themselves. Please think carefully before you post here and try and understand others'points of view of so that this thread doesn't end up as a flame war and is shut down or, even worse, people start getting banned.


Of course it's a sensible subject, and I'm not trashing him. I've seen a few other posts and comments by him and they were always very insightful and interesting, so this came as a shock to me. I'm left wing, so/but I wouldn't dream of stepping over someone else's personal freedom and choices in this type of matter, let alone in the manner in which he did it. I don't know if he was personally affected by levine's actions or if he knows someone who was, that always makes this type of things a lot more difficult to process. As you say, it's a personal decision. I just don't like this sort of judgement.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

Yawn. 

Knorf's OP deserves Talk Classical's Opprobrium, NOT Adoration.

Doesn't impassioned and exasperated moralising belong in the 'Politics and religion in classical music' sub-thread?


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I have no Levine recordings, so am not sure how to react. But, in the 1960's Bill Cosby's stand-up recordings were pretty much the funniest things in existence. Haven't heard them in years, but have wanted to. Now not sure if I ever will again, or how I should react if I did. Bruno Walter was not a paragon of virtue, but we worship his recordings. Is there a statute of limitations? I am really conflicted. 
[I went off on a misanthropic rant here, but erased it.  ]


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

MarkW said:


> I have no Levine recordings, so am not sure how to react. But, in the 1960's Bill Cosby's stand-up recordings were pretty much the funniest things in existence. Haven't heard them in years, but have wanted to. Now not sure if I ever will again, or how I should react if I did. Bruno Walter was not a paragon of virtue, but we worship his recordings. Is there a statute of limitations? I am really conflicted.
> [I went off on a misanthropic rant here, but erased it.  ]


CTRL-C

The list of things we can appreciate would become very slender indeed if we had to grade human accomplishments on the overall moral fiber of the human involved.

CTRL-V


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Nevermind......


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Cases like Levine's are almost certainly far more common in the classical music industry than we are led to believe.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/apr/26/sexual-harassment-survey-incorporated-society-musicians

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sexual-harassment-classic-music-incorporate-society-musicians-west-end-bbc-radio-3-a8088591.html


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Those who describe some words or action as harmless have usually not been the recipient of that. I just wish that there were some way that the person making some "inappropriate but harmless' behaviour could be put in the position of being the recipient and see if they then think that it is harmless. The impact of such incidents, which are usually part of an ongoing pattern, has a cumulative impact. Ask any woman if they have ever been the target of "harmless" sexual behaviour. If they say yes, then ask them if it was just a single incident or not, you will usually find that it isn't. You can ignore it the first time but if you get to the point that you can't got out without wondering if this will be the time it happens again, then it is no longer harmless, no matter what others say. And, of course, the problem is exacerbated if it comes from someone who is in a position of power.

BTW, the OP had to do with how Levine's behaviour should be seen, however it seems to have devolved into whether or not it is appropriate to buy CDs by him. That is just a way of minimizing the situation and avoiding addressing the real issue.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Becca said:


> Those who describe some words or action as harmless have usually not been the recipient of that. I just wish that there were some way that the person making some "inappropriate but harmless' behaviour could be put in the position of being the recipient and see if they then think that it is harmless. The impact of such incidents, which are usually part of an ongoing pattern, has a cumulative impact. Ask any woman if they have ever been the target of "harmless" sexual behaviour. If they say yes, then ask them if it was just a single incident or not, you will usually find that it isn't. You can ignore it the first time but if you get to the point that you can't got out without wondering if this will be the time it happens again, then it is no longer harmless, no matter what others say. And, of course, the problem is exacerbated if it comes from someone who is in a position of power.
> 
> BTW, the OP had to do with how Levine's behaviour should be seen, however it seems to have devolved into whether or not it is appropriate to buy CDs by him. That is just a way of minimizing the situation and avoiding addressing the real issue.


Why is this about women? With Levine, it was men/boys...


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The real issue was addressed here three years ago in a thread that went on for 12 pages. Same for Domingo and Dutoit. I appreciate Knorf and his input on musical subjects and recordings. It's cool to have some professionals here to share their insight and experience. I just disagree that a special thread to bash a dead guy was necessary. Levine was exposed for his abuse and subsequently fired from his post ending his career in disgrace. It's up to the management of the various musical organizations to deal with the problem.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Why is this about women? With Levine, it was men/boys...


It is about inappropriate behaviour and how it is minimized but shouldn't be, it doesn't matter if it is women, men, girls or boys. I would hope that you could realize that the mention of women was only to demonstrate a point.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

MatthewWeflen said:


> CTRL-C
> 
> The list of things we can appreciate would become very slender indeed if we had to grade human accomplishments on the overall moral fiber of the human involved.
> CTRL-V


Yes, for sure...Bernstein certainly had a ...umm... colorful past....and he was pretty flamboyant about it...I love his music and his music-making...his personal life doesn't bother me that much.
Picasso certainly had a sordid record of relationships and lack of responsibility... should we jettison all of our Picasso art works??


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Becca said:


> It is about inappropriate behaviour and how it is minimized but shouldn't be, it doesn't matter if it is women, men, girls or boys. I would hope that you could realize that the mention of women was only to demonstrate a point.


It depends on the behavior, the people involved, the context. A lot of it is minimized, some of it is overblown. Both types of reactions are dangerous, dogmatic, and unproductive.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

So what to do with Artists whose work we admire but whom we find personally repellant? I don’t believe in canceling them completely. Removing them from positions of power which they can use to perpetuate abuses seems prudent. I believe that they should be able to otherwise work in their fields, while not covering for them. Those that find Public Opprobrium to oppressive will choose to withdraw; others, like Woody Allen or Rob Lowe or Roman Polanski will carry on and try to deal with it. And everyone else can make up their own minds and vote with their pocketbooks


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Heck148 said:


> Yes, for sure...Bernstein certainly had a ...umm... colorful past....and he was pretty flamboyant about it...I love his music and his music-making...his personal life doesn't bother me that much.
> Picasso certainly had a sordid record of relationships and lack of responsibility... should we jettison all of our Picasso art works??


Yeah. I think that the conscious and conscientious consumer of art can both enjoy a work and condemn the artist who made it. Why not enjoy great art and raise one's consciousness about how to treat other human beings?

And of course in this case there are frequently hundreds of other artists involved. It is mathematically certain that at least one of that hundred was an equally bad person in one way or another. How many tax cheats are in a given string section, sex offenders in the woodwinds, etc. etc.? How many composers were of questionable moral fiber?

I want to be clear, I do condemn Levine's purported mistreatment of the people around him and his abuse of power with them. People who commit bad acts should lose those positions of power and financial security, regardless of their artistic ability. But that doesn't diminish their prior work. I listen to Michael Jackson, for instance. Were he alive, I would not purchase a new album of his, nor would I pay to stream any of his catalog (all of my MJ is from CDs purchased long ago).

Everyone needs to come to their own ethical understanding, I suppose. The above represents mine and mine alone.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Heck148 said:


> Yes, for sure...Bernstein certainly had a ...umm... colorful past....and he was pretty flamboyant about it...I love his music and his music-making...his personal life doesn't bother me that much.
> Picasso certainly had a sordid record of relationships and lack of responsibility... should we jettison all of our Picasso art works??


Flipside too.
If a prominent musician is involved with all sorts of good causes and is an excellent person then should that make me listen to their performances in preference to that of someone who just gets on with the music, and isn't especially admirable? No.
Putting people on pedestals is part of the reason why (i) some of them think it's OK to do bad things, and (ii) others think it's OK to turn a blind eye. Because they're SPECIAL. No they're not.
You must have seen the stories of charity workers engaging in sexual adventurism in poor areas. This is partly about power, but it's also about them giving themselves a free pass to do what they want because they're so admirable; after all they're charity workers, so a little bit of exploitation is just a little bit of payback. I'm sure that Jimmy Saville used his charity work both (i) to give him good PR and so make allegations harder to make, but also (ii) to balance, in his own head, the abuse he meted out to his victims.
Some people are morally admirable; some people are waving a baton. Different things. No connection.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

I think the posts attacking Knorf for sanctimonious virtue-signaling are unwarranted. Coming from a fairly cynical person myself, not EVERY goddamn thing is expressed with the intent of gratifying one's ego and obtaining social approval. If you feel strongly about a serious issue, you have every right to speak your mind about it. It's not like he posted some banality like "Hey, racism is bad, amirite guys?! Press like!". It's natural for a lot of people to feel personally attacked as it was a wide spread condemnation of the forum's behavior, but I think it's self-righteous in its own way to dismiss his intentions as not being genuine. I don't see every post the man makes, but I've never seen him get on a soapbox before being preachy with his opinions, so I take it with good faith he was genuinely incensed by the matter.



Eclectic Al said:


> Flipside too.
> If a prominent musician is involved with all sorts of good causes and is an excellent person then should that make me listen to their performances in preference to that of someone who just gets on with the music, and isn't especially admirable? No.
> Putting people on pedestals is part of the reason why (i) some of them think it's OK to do bad things, and (ii) others think it's OK to turn a blind eye. Because they're SPECIAL. No they're not.


I've had the misfortune of personally knowing people like this, doing charitable acts to improve one's one self-image and moral high ground, making them feel entitled to whatever despicable behavior they wish, unreproached. Eva Braun ran a shelter for stray puppies - I don't give a ***** how moral you are, or better put, how moral you want people to think you are.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

Jacck said:


> The problem with these allegiations is that one does not know whom to trust. On one hand, there are sexual predators that are repulsive, on the other hand, there are people trying to get their 5 minutes of fame or extract some money from accusing a celebrity. The American sexual morale is also a little hysterical, unable to differentiate between relatively harmless behavior (which might be inapropriate) on one hand and dangerous things like rape, lumping all of it under the "sexual harassment" label. If Levine really did destroy careers and was a sexual predator, then I agree he should be shuned.


When coming out to accuse a well-known person of sexual assault or predation, the risk is almost always greater than any possible reward. I think the idea that people often do this (that is, make accusations) to make a quick buck is a total fallacy.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I think the posts attacking Knorf for sanctimonious virtue-signaling are unwarranted.


They were no more unwarranted than Knorf's sanctimonious virtue-signaling.



> I take it with good faith he was genuinely incensed by the matter.


But not incensed enough to make such comments until after Levine had died.

Sorry to go on about this, but I think that one of the main scourges of modern society is the obsession that some people seem to have about controlling what people think. And I think that Knorf's OP was an example, whether that's what he intended or not.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Knorf didn't condemn consenting adults for their private behavior, so why not work out your moral qualms (if you have any) about listening to Levine's performances quietly with your own conscience instead of blaming Knorf for your discomfort? Withholding public praise for a lowlife rapist isn't much to ask.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> Knorf didn't condemn consenting adults for their private behavior, so why not work out your moral qualms (if you have any) about listening to Levine's performances quietly with your own conscience instead of blaming Knorf for your discomfort? Withholding public praise for a lowlife rapist isn't much to ask.


I'm very comfortable with my moral qualms, but thanks for your concern.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I was never a fan of Levine (I don't own any of his recordings except for the Met Ring, and hardly have listened to it) before the sexual crimes were exposed, so there was absolutely no reason for me to seek out his recordings after he was exposed as a predator.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I've had the misfortune of personally knowing people like this, *doing charitable acts to improve one's one self-image* and moral high ground, making them feel entitled to whatever despicable behavior they wish, unreproached. Eva Braun ran a shelter for stray puppies - I don't give a ***** how moral you are, or better put, how moral you want people to think you are.


That's like most people in the world bro.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

As I mentioned in an earlier thread, my experience as a lawyer, including in some high-profile cases, showed that me that if you want to get close to the truth, it must be in a hearing in a court with rules of procedure and evidence. Trials in the news or entertainment media, or the gossip and rumor mill, stray far from the truth over and over. Levine's activities were an "open secret" for years? Not to me. But even if this is so, ask about the handful of wealthy and powerful people who ultimately control the Met (and the New York Philharmonic, and other such 'institutions'). Not about his fellow musicians or ordinary classical music listeners in the cheap seats. When I walk through an art museum, do I need to close my eyes when I pass the work of alleged child molesters? If we add clients of prostitutes, I'll need a guide dog.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

Superflumina said:


> Not sure if you're joking or not, this man was a rapist who preyed on underage boys, bringing up here that he was gay is tone deaf and wrong.


I think it's probably true that repression and being treated like a deviant (which is certainly true of being gay in the US, though it has been getting a lot better) can lead to pathological behavior in some people. This is not to excuse Levine. But I think there are probably societal/external factors that lead to this sort of thing happening as well. Sort of like how people who are abused are themselves more prone to become abusers.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

fluteman said:


> As I mentioned in an earlier thread, my experience as a lawyer, including in some high-profile cases, showed that me that if you want to get close to the truth, it must be in a hearing in a court with rules of procedure and evidence. Trials in the news or entertainment media, or the gossip and rumor mill, stray far from the truth over and over. Levine's activities were an "open secret" for years? Not to me. But even if this is so, ask about the handful of wealthy and powerful people who ultimately control the Met (and the New York Philharmonic, and other such 'institutions'). Not about his fellow musicians or ordinary classical music listeners in the cheap seats. When I walk through an art museum, do I need to close my eyes when I pass the work of alleged child molesters? If we add clients of prostitutes, I'll need a guide dog.


Courts don't seek "truth." They seek legal outcomes, which is not quite the same thing. Perhaps they're correlated, but certainly not perfectly.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

wkasimer said:


> They were no more unwarranted than Knorf's sanctimonious virtue-signaling.


How are you able to get into Knorf's head to know that he's just "virtue-signaling," and that his feelings on this aren't genuine?


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

apricissimus said:


> I think it's probably true that repression and being treated like a deviant (which is certainly true of being gay in the US, though it has been getting a lot better) can lead to pathological behavior in some people. This is not to excuse Levine. But I think there are probably societal/external factors that lead to this sort of thing happening as well. Sort of like how people who are abused are themselves more prone to become abusers.


This sounds perilously close to a claim that gay people are more likely to commit sexual abuse. I hope that's not what you mean, and if it is, I'd want to see your evidence.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

amfortas said:


> This sounds perilously close to a claim that gay people are more likely to commit sexual abuse. I hope that's not what you mean, and if it is, I'd want to see your evidence.


If they are, it's not because they are gay, but because they have been repressed and treated badly.

I don't know whether gay people are more or less likely to commit sexual abuse. But I would be surprised if people who experience psychological trauma aren't more prone to all kinds of bad behavior than those that are not.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

apricissimus said:


> Courts don't seek "truth." They seek legal outcomes, which is not quite the same thing. Perhaps they're correlated, but certainly not perfectly.


That's a fair point - but whatever its imperfections, the court system is vastly superior to trial by the media, rumor, and public opinion.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

wkasimer said:


> That's a fair point - but whatever its imperfections, the court system is vastly superior to trial by the media, rumor, and public opinion.


So true. These days, when a person of note is accused of sexual abuse, the vultures are at the door.


----------



## tombomp (Apr 25, 2019)

Whatever the moral issues revolving around the specific person, people who have been affected by similar actions do read how you react to them being brought up. There are certain comments on here that aren't defending the right to listen to Levine's recordings or defending themselves as a "good person" but instead saying that the mere act of caring about it is "virtue signalling" and casting aspersions on his accusers. If you're going to talk about "signalling", consider what stuff like that reads as to other people.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

wkasimer said:


> That's a fair point - but whatever its imperfections, the court system is vastly superior to trial by the media, rumor, and public opinion.


A good friend of mine killed herself because she had to defend herself in court in front of the man who abused her when she was at Chethams music school. His defence team was aggressive, forcing her to relive events that happened years ago simply because she had previously mentioned privately to a friend what had happened. This friend, a teacher, then felt morally and professionally obligated to report this because the man was still in education.
She had the worst of all possible worlds, an aggressive defence team and a trial that made the nationwide press. All of this and the fact that she didn't want to press charges anyway as it happened a long time ago and was now back in her life for all to see. The man was guilty and is now in prison.

Despite the tragedy of this situation, I believe her friend had no option other than to report this abuse.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

mikeh375 said:


> A good friend of mine killed herself because she had to defend herself in court in front of the man who abused her when she was at Chethams music school. His defence team was aggressive, forcing her to relive events that happened years ago because she had mentioned privately to a friend what had happened. This friend, a teacher, then felt morally obligated to report this because the man was still in education.
> She had the worst of all possible worlds, an aggressive defence team and a trial that made the nationwide press. All of this and the fact that she didn't want to press charges anyway as it happened a long time ago. The man was guilty and is now in prison.
> 
> Despite the tragedy of this situation, I believe her friend had no option other than to report this abuse.


I'm sorry for your loss Mike. That sounds terrible.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Triplets said:


> So what to do with Artists whose work we admire but whom we find personally repellant? I don't believe in canceling them completely. Removing them from positions of power which they can use to perpetuate abuses seems prudent. I believe that they should be able to otherwise work in their fields, while not covering for them. Those that find Public Opprobrium to oppressive will choose to withdraw; others, like Woody Allen or Rob Lowe or Roman Polanski will carry on and try to deal with it. And everyone else can make up their own minds and vote with their pocketbooks


Peronally, I can completely dissociate the artist as a person and the art as creation. I would have no problem listening to music composed by Adolf Hitler if it were good. And I don't give a damn about conductors. I have not yet understood the adulation they receive. In my mind, the composer is the creator of the music. Conductor is just a sophisticated gramophone to play the music.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Jacck said:


> The problem with these allegiations is that one does not know whom to trust. On one hand, there are sexual predators that are repulsive, on the other hand, there are people trying to get their 5 minutes of fame or extract some money from accusing a celebrity. The American sexual morale is also a little hysterical, unable to differentiate between relatively harmless behavior (which might be inapropriate) on one hand and dangerous things like rape, lumping all of it under the "sexual harassment" label. If Levine really did destroy careers and was a sexual predator, then I agree he should be shuned.


It's apparently not a question of some possibly false rumors in this case. For example, employees and staff at the Boston SO were stunned and depressed, when he got appointed, because of the many stories about him.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

joen_cph said:


> It's apparently not a question of some possibly false rumors in this case. For example, employees and staff at the Boston SO were stunned and depressed, when he got appointed, because of the many stories about him.


I know almost nothing about this particular case and I tend to believe that the allegiations are true in this case. On the other hand, I think there are some cases of celebrities that were treated unfairly, imho. For example Kevin Spacey. There were some allegiations that he groped some young men during alcohol parties. He invited them, they accepted, he then touched them inappropriately, but if they refused he stopped. So what is exactly was the terrible crime that resulted in him being cut out of movies? Yes, he behaved inapropriately. But I do not believe he caused any severe trauma to any of those boys, he did not rape anybody. These mob trials by public shaming are not good.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

wkasimer said:


> Sorry to go on about this, but I think that one of the main scourges of modern society is the obsession that some people seem to have about controlling what people think. And I think that Knorf's OP was an example, whether that's what he intended or not.


I didn't read him as trying to control the thoughts of others. But he was raising an objection to the ugly elephant in the room. Knorf certainly caught my own discomfort with the praise for a man who had used his position for years to commit criminal acts and damage many lives. I do feel Levine was a good conductor - although I mostly know him in works that I am very familiar with and have many recordings that I prefer to his - but I think it is important to remember who he was and, also, how wrong the world was to allow that sort of behaviour to continue.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Jacck said:


> Peronally, I can completely dissociate the artist as a person and the art as creation. I would have no problem listening to music composed by Adolf Hitler if it were good. And I don't give a damn about conductors. I have not yet understood the adulation they receive. In my mind, the composer is the creator of the music. Conductor is just a sophisticated gramophone to play the music.


I can't separate art from artist. I have no interest in Hitler's artwork. Even if it were superb, it would still be fruit from a diseased tree. And yes, the reported picture of Wagner the person does color my perception of Wagner's work. Situations like this call to mind the Orwell essay about Dali titled "Benefit of Clergy" (q.v.) which I've referenced here before:


> If Shakespeare returned to the earth tomorrow, and if it were found that his favourite recreation was raping little girls in railway carriages, we should not tell him to go ahead with it on the ground that he might write another King Lear. And, after all, the worse crimes are not always the punishable ones. By encouraging necrophilic reveries one probably does quite as much harm as by, say, picking pockets at the races. One ought to be able to hold in one's head simultaneously the two facts that Dali is a good draughtsman and a disgusting human being. The one does not invalidate or, in a sense, affect the other. The first thing that we demand of a wall is that it shall stand up. If it stands up, it is a good wall, and the question of what purpose it serves is separable from that. And yet even the best wall in the world deserves to be pulled down if it surrounds a concentration camp. In the same way it should be possible to say, 'This is a good book or a good picture, and it ought to be burned by the public hangman.' Unless one can say that, at least in imagination, one is shirking the implications of the fact that an artist is also a citizen and a human being.


As for James Levine, I was never a fan of his recorded work and don't know the truth of his life, so I have no opinion.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

mikeh375 said:


> A good friend of mine killed herself because she had to defend herself in court in front of the man who abused her when she was at Chethams music school. His defence team was aggressive, forcing her to relive events that happened years ago simply because she had previously mentioned privately to a friend what had happened. This friend, a teacher, then felt morally and professionally obligated to report this because the man was still in education.
> She had the worst of all possible worlds, an aggressive defence team and a trial that made the nationwide press. All of this and the fact that she didn't want to press charges anyway as it happened a long time ago and was now back in her life for all to see. The man was guilty and is now in prison.
> 
> Despite the tragedy of this situation, I believe her friend had no option other than to report this abuse.


I was a juror on a rape trial some years ago. Many things passed through my mind during the process, but one of the main ones was why this particular case went to trial at all. It will have been very unpleasant for the complainant (to say the least), and in this case there was no prospect of conviction as we, the jury, couldn't possibly know beyond reasonable doubt what had happened.

When the prosecution finished making their case we were sent to the jury room while there was some legal discussion. We fully expected to be dismissed, or for the defence team to call no witnesses, because no case had been made. Instead we went through a pointless exercise of listening to defence witnesses as they sought to attack the version of events (and the character) of the complainant. In reality all they could have achieved might have been to trip up via some sort of admission, as we had already decided that we couldn't possibly know enough to convict as it stood.

I have no solutions, where it is one person's word against another it is inevitable that the defence team will seek to undermine the complainant (and the accused should indeed get the best possible defence as well as the benefit of the doubt), and if there is no corroborating evidence of any sort it is hard to see how a conviction could result anyway. I think people are too inclined to underestimate the nastiness of having to go through the process as a complainant: they probably get caught up in a process whatever they want to happen. I ended up feeling that this case was brought because the CPS wanted to keep its statistics up (in terms of prosecutions), but it was never going to do anything other than reduce the conviction rate. The complainant seemed like a pawn.

Very sorry about your friend.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> I didn't read him as trying to control the thoughts of others.


I did.

Knorf chose the wrong target. If he wants to shame someone, he should write a scathing public letter to the Gelb and the Met board for their complicity. And while he's at it, a similar public letter to the management of the Boston Symphony Orchestra that hired him as music director. And anyone else who knew facts and swept them under the rug.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

apricissimus said:


> If they are, it's not because they are gay, but because they have been repressed and treated badly.
> 
> I don't know whether gay people are more or less likely to commit sexual abuse. But I would be surprised if people who experience psychological trauma aren't more prone to all kinds of bad behavior than those that are not.


It can also happen that people who are given free rein on their sexuality feel more entitled to all kinds of bad behavior than those who are not.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

"If it stands up, it is a good wall, and the question of what purpose it serves is separable from that. And yet even the best wall in the world deserves to be pulled down if it surrounds a concentration camp."

I don't think this is a good parallel. It may be correct that a paedophile writing a book which (subtly or otherwise) validates paedophilia should have that book destroyed. But the same would true if the person writing that book is not a paedophile.

Equally, if there is a wall around a concentration camp which functions as an effective wall it should indeed be knocked down. But that is because of its function. Whether the person building the wall was a supporter of the concentration camp, or maybe an inmate forced to build it at pain of death, is beside the point.

In the case of Levine, unless you think that his performance of Tchaikovsky's 6th somehow was supportive of being a sexual predator, then I think you can separate the two things, Levine and the music.

My own personal stance is that if I believe an accusation like this then I will not buy the person's stuff while they are alive, because it might benefit them, but once they are dead then it would not bother me.


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

Somehow I'm reminded of me watching a pilot of a British police/detective tv-series, where a young assistant detective sergeant from the local police discovers some very nasty whereabouts and deeds of his favourite opera singer. These discoveries eventually lead to the fully justified detention and imprisonment of the famous vocalist.

Years after that, the policeman's earlier purchased recordings of that opera singer still appeared to be part of his beloved vinyl collection.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

This was a really good reflection on Levine:

https://kennethwoods.net/blog1/2021/03/18/james-levine/

It seems pretty clear that Levine was a bad man who did bad things, and should have been fired and/or incarcerated far earlier than his eventual reputational depantsing. He was also a talented conductor whose bad behavior was coddled and minimized by the people who bankrolled the BSO, in the service of financial gain for all concerned.

I personally only own one Levine recording (which I do enjoy) that was given to me by a friend. I don't have much of a dog in the fight.

To me what this all points to is the danger of celebrity.

For thousands of years, humans who could create beauty through performance or artistic production have been celebrated and valued. It's really pretty odd when you think about it. There isn't much survival value in it for early humans, and creative types have long tended to be, shall we say... less competitive for reproductive resources... yet the impulse seems to have been selected for (I say this as someone who always felt less physically attractive than his peers and cultivated drawing and writing abilities, probably mostly unconsciously, as a strategy to attract mates). When you graft onto that our current culture of glorification and massively outsized financial compensation for celebrity creators, you have a recipe for disaster, really.

Beethoven, a famously socially maladroit ugmoe, couldn't land a date back in 1800. But if he were alive and producing today? Yikes. Who knows what shenanigans he would have gotten into.

Levine was probably near the very far end of the bell curve in terms of bad acts. But If you took one hundred creative weirdos and effectively lavished them with worship, impunity, and gobs of money, I imagine a pretty disgusting bell curve of behavior would form.

I'm just musing, I guess. I don't know what the solution is. We should certainly worship celebrity less, and punish bad acts more swiftly. If creative people were suitably rewarded for their creativity but not given that extra psychically poisonous remuneration, and there was a strong culture of rebuke for bad acts, we would all be better off, I think.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

What all of this proves is that political correctness and latent indignation is no substitute for moral courage in the heat of the kitchen. The Levine situation is just another sad characteristic of a materialistic society that elevates money and celebrity above truth, accountability and integrity.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

starthrower said:


> What all of this proves is that political correctness and latent indignation is no substitute for moral courage in the heat of the kitchen. The Levine situation is just another sad characteristic of a materialistic society that elevates money and celebrity above truth, accountability and integrity.


What society isn't and hasn't?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

consuono said:


> What society isn't and hasn't?


I don't believe my statement implied that America was unique in this respect. But nevertheless those in the classical music biz had their reasons for covering up for Levine to the detriment of the victims.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

starthrower said:


> I don't believe my statement implied that America was unique in this respect. But nevertheless those in the classical music biz had their reasons for covering up for Levine to the detriment of the victims.


So it's another sad characteristic of society, period, which are usually by definition materialistic, crass and morally shallow.

Not to open a can of worms, but Oscar Wilde is still celebrated after the "martyrdom" of jail and ruin for doing pretty much what Levine was accused of doing.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

consuono said:


> So it's another sad characteristic of society, period, which are usually by definition materialistic, crass and morally shallow.


I don't pretend to know the inner workings and influential power brokers in the classical music business. You'd have to ask the OP, Knorf. As he is in the business. I assume some brave souls spoke up over the years and were silenced until enough evidence surfaced which could no longer be brushed under the carpet.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

MatthewWeflen said:


> This was a really good reflection on Levine:
> 
> https://kennethwoods.net/blog1/2021/03/18/james-levine/
> 
> ...


Yes, people who abuse power to perform acts of harassment, coercion and assault probably abuse it in other ways too, and probably have a convoluted sense of morality to begin with. None of this is surprising, but thanks for sharing.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Jacck said:


> I don't give a damn about conductors. I have not yet understood the adulation they receive. In my mind, the composer is the creator of the music. Conductor is just a sophisticated gramophone to play the music.


I agree. For example, the number of pages generated in the discussion <Explain fascination with Furtwängler> still amazes me.
Your avatar is awesome, btw. (Don't ever change it!)


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Jacck said:


> And I don't give a damn about conductors. I have not yet understood the adulation they receive. In my mind, the composer is the creator of the music. Conductor is just a sophisticated gramophone to play the music.


Sure. In the same way Directors don't matter to movies or Coaches don't matter to sports teams.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Sure. In the same way Directors don't matter to movies or Coaches don't matter to sports teams.


Have a look at this: _"What Does A Conductor Do"_


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> Have a look at this: _"What Does A Conductor Do"_


Even in a routine about how conductors are unnecessary, they needed a conductor to make the comedy act work.


----------



## Plague (Apr 4, 2020)

This week, when I was thinking about whether I should boycott Levine's recordings because he was a sexual predator, I raised and answered the following questions:

1. Will boycotting Levine's recordings hurt Levine?

No. He's dead.

2. Will such a boycott help the victims of Levine?

No. The damage is done, and there is nothing I can do to eliminate their sufferings in the past.

3. Will such a boycott deter future sexual predators from their despicable acts?

Most probably no. Sexual predators in classical music industry committed their despicable acts despite the possible consequences that are more severe and tangible than boycott of their recordings, such as ruin of reputation, loss of prestigious job, ostracization from music community. When the deterrence works, it is mostly, if not totally, the work of these most severe and tangible possible consequences. When even they can't deter the sexual predator, nothing will.

4. Will such a boycott do an injustice to the musicians who made the recordings together with Levine, many of whom are still alive and active?

Absolutely yes. They shouldn't pay the price for someone else's evil actions.

So I feel I'm justified in buying, listening to and commenting on Levine's recordings in the future.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

A good friend of mine at school was from Cleveland, and knew Levine well in those years he spent in that city...
He said definitely that Levine had his circle of "boys", that he (my friend) was actually a member, so to speak, for a short time...inclusion in Levine-directed musical events and programs was often contingent upon participation in the extra-, non- musical activities....My friend did not however specify whether these activities were with consenting adults, or with minors...


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

consuono said:


> Not to open a can of worms, but Oscar Wilde is still celebrated after the "martyrdom" of jail and ruin for doing pretty much what Levine was accused of doing.


The focus should be on classical music management who ignored the abuse for years.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

I found this kernel of wisdom on the Internet a few days ago. Thought it'd be relevant to share it here:



> I often laugh when someone declares a thing to be fair. Fairness is a funny illusion. It's one of our most useful illusions, but it's an illusion nonetheless.
> 
> Imagine trying to "fairly" divide ten identical marbles between two kids. You could give five marbles to each kid, wave your arms and declare it fair. The kids would probably agree with this arrangement. The illusion of fairness works.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

I meant to reply to another post. See below.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

mbhaub said:


> While in no way condoning what Levine did, I have some sympathy for the guy. He grew up at a time when being a gay man was still somewhat taboo. To protect his image and dreams he had to suppress this part of him. Can you imagine the internal torture of having to live like that? He wasn't alone: there were plenty of actors, politicians, religious leaders and other public figures who led secret lives not because they wanted to, but because they had to. I'm no psychologist but I've read enough to know that living like that has got to screw with your brain. Before anyone castigates Levine maybe the Biblical injunction of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" should give us pause. And keep in mind that there are many other famous people who have done some really bad things yet they either get a pass or even joke about it. James Levine was a flawed man, as we all are. I just find it deeply sad to think that a man as talented as he would spend his time lurking about in public parks at night looking for a gay hookup. Maybe if society were more tolerant, accepting and open he wouldn't have to live that way.


Then again, think of all the closeted gay men who _didn't_ end up molesting underage boys.

But I do see what you're saying, and I'd like to expand on it. Levine debuted at the Met in 1971. Now, I don't remember the '70's (I was born in '77), but I'm told they were a very free or "anything goes" sort of time when it came to relationships, love, and sex. So I can easily imagine that, when the Met musicians or singers heard all those rumors about Levine's after-hours behavior during that decade, they would have been apt to tell themselves something like, "Well, _if_ this is true, then it's a weird part of Jimmy that's really none of my business, so long as it doesn't affect his conducting. I don't socialize with him, anyway, so what's it to me?" I get the sense, too, that Levine was a much more galvanizing, exciting maestro in the '70s and '80s than he later became. Thus I can kind of see how, between the "live and let live" attitudes of the '70s/'80s and the desire to keep such a talent at the Met, his behavior ended up being enabled by various parties.

As for the Levine I actually remember on Met broadcasts/telecasts in the '90's/2000's, it seems he was a much more complacent, routine sort of conductor by that point--so I am a little surprised the truth about his sexual proclivities didn't come out then (i.e., was his conducting really so great that it justified protecting him?). On the other hand, he probably had so much power at the Met that he was able to just get others to do his bidding. I did read that he actively prevented many other great maestros from conducting at the house while he was its principal conductor and artistic director.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I found this kernel of wisdom on the Internet a few days ago. Thought it'd be relevant to share it here:


He didn't give a child or two the benefit of life because it's supposed to be all about him and he wants a Hummer when he can easily walk to work. He's a bad person. :lol:


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Bellinilover said:


> But I do see what you're saying, and I'd like to expand on it. Levine debuted at the Met in 1971. Now, I don't remember the '70's (I was born in '77), but I'm told they were a very free or "anything goes" sort of time when it came to relationships, love, and sex.


Not as free as you might think, and it sure didn't apply to grown men molesting children.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> Not as free as you might think, and it sure didn't apply to grown men molesting children.


No, but others might not have understood that this was what Levine was doing. They might have thought he was simply trying to pick up slightly younger but still adult young men.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Knorf said:


> James Levine was a sexual predator.
> 
> We know exactly how institutions such as the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts and James Levine get away with these crimes. It's happening again, all over again, just the same, right here on Talk Classical.


It looks like Levine was, at the very least, using his power for the wrong ends (or at least ends which weren't entirely above board).

It true that those institutions have a history of trying to cover up child sexual abuse, but now they can't hide and in recent decades many cases have gone to court (and its not only the Catholic Church, cases of abuse have been exposed in other denominations). This would be one of the most tricky areas of law, because often (as in Levine's case) the situation is only beginning to be exposed and investigated decades after the alleged crimes took place. Its very difficult for a case to be watertight, and if technical errors are made (such as with evidence), then the accused can be declared innocent.

I'm not fully up to date on the Levine case, but the closest parallel I can think of is Michael Jackson. He made an out of court settlement which might still be controversial. No doubt that with the passage of time, further facts might be unearthed about what really happened which may lead to some sort of closure.

I'm just a listener of music. I've only got one disc by Levine, which I purchased before the allegations surfaced. I thought about getting rid of it but decided to keep it, and the same goes with others that I enjoy such as Michael Jackson (and even the Nazi ideologue Karl Bohm).

Incidentally, cases like Wilde or Tchaikovsky were different because in their time homosexuality was against the law. It was less a case of doing it - there where active gay scenes among intellectual and upper classes in the major cities - but being caught. I think that in most Western countries at least, what used to be called sodomy is no longer a crime. In the UK, it was decriminalised in the 1960's. Similarly, it was also labelled as a psychiatric illness, although I'm not sure when that ended (1980's?).


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Sid James said:


> ...
> 
> Incidentally, cases like Wilde or Tchaikovsky were different because in their time homosexuality was against the law. It was less a case of doing it - there where active gay scenes among intellectual and upper classes in the major cities - but being caught. I think that in most Western countries at least, what used to be called sodomy is no longer a crime. In the UK, it was decriminalised in the 1960's. Similarly, it was also labelled as a psychiatric illness, although I'm not sure when that ended (1980's?).


In the case of Oscar Wilde, not so. There were several reported cases of his using coercion and threats in sexual encounters with underage boys.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

consuono said:


> In the case of Oscar Wilde, not so. There were several reported cases of his using coercion and threats in sexual encounters with underage boys.


To my knowledge, that wasn't the reason why he was imprisoned, it was simply because he was guilty of sodomy (another term used was buggery). Homosexual sex between consenting adults is no longer a crime in the West, and even in other countries where it remains a crime the _don't ask, don't tell_ sort of approach is often the reality.

In terms of sex with minors (pedophilia) which is a crime, the issue of obtaining consent (with teenage children) is an extremely murky area. In addition to Levine and Jackson, the late novelist Arthur C. Clarke's case also touched upon this. I'm not qualified or knowledgeable enough to discuss it here. Even if I was, I wouldn't be comfortable doing it, knowing the lasting damage which sexual abuse of children causes to victims.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Sid James said:


> To my knowledge, that wasn't the reason why he was imprisoned, it was simply because he was guilty of sodomy (another term used was buggery). Homosexual sex between consenting adults is no longer a crime in the West, and even in other countries where it remains a crime the _don't ask, don't tell_ sort of approach is often the reality.
> ...


That's true; however, it could be said that the reason he was imprisoned is he stupidly sued the Marquess of Queensberry for libel. In the course of the trial a lot of underage boys came out of the woodwork and it all snowballed against Wilde.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Yes, that’s how the whole thing got into court in the first place.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Let's enjoy the great maestro's last public appearance (according to the video anyway).


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

You might be interested in this:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/10/matzneff-scandal-france-consent-literary-establishment

I think this is an interesting quote: "the identification of the potentially sexual nature of the relationship between adults and children was one of the ways of going against the bourgeois order". Convenient!

Let's think about popular music. Groupies are a thing, including under-age: think Mandy Smith.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandy_Smith
I detect a feeling that Mandy Smith is seen as an opportunist, rather than a victim, because the world she was sucked into is a glamorous one. The stars in that sort of world are given special allowances for some reason. It's the same with drug use. Being dissolute is seen as part of the world of music and film, so it often seems to be tolerated or even in a way celebrated. Girls picked out of audiences to go backstage, with no regard for their age - or maybe, the younger looking the better. Did/does that happen: my guess is "yes", quite often.

Then we have the casting couch. As people come forward saying that they were compelled to give sexual favours for career advancement, I cannot help also thinking of those who refused and maybe their careers didn't prosper as a result.

To the extent that I would excuse Levine individually (which isn't a large extent), it would be in order to spread the blame collectively among all who create an atmosphere in which people with power are given licence (by each other, and sometimes fawning journalists) to exploit others, with the law not deemed to apply to them.

Take Woody Allen. Whatever was or wasn't illegal about his behaviour, there is something uniquely disturbing about this sort of case. It is that he has supporters who would not give him their support if he was an accountant. They give him the benefit of the doubt because they like his films. It takes us back to the French intellectuals: if I rape a 14 year old as an act against the bourgeois order then that is estimable; if a business man does the same because he is aroused by children, then he is a brute, and probably an example of the evils of power imbalances in the bourgeois order. Convenient for the paedophile intellectual, or what.

It's one of those irregular verbs: I rebel against the bourgeois order; you are a victim of childhood abuse; he is an evil rapist.


----------



## milk (Apr 25, 2018)

Eclectic Al said:


> Take Woody Allen. Whatever was or wasn't illegal about his behaviour, there is something uniquely disturbing about this sort of case. It is that he has supporters who would not give him their support if he was an accountant. They give him the benefit of the doubt because they like his films. It takes us back to the French intellectuals: if I rape a 14 year old as an act against the bourgeois order then that is estimable; if a business man does the same because he is aroused by children, then he is a brute, and probably an example of the evils of power imbalances in the bourgeois order. Convenient for the paedophile intellectual, or what.
> 
> It's one of those irregular verbs: I rebel against the bourgeois order; you are a victim of childhood abuse; he is an evil rapist.


 To which allegations or circumstances about Allen are you referring?


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

milk said:


> To which allegations or circumstances about Allen are you referring?


As I say, "whatever was or wasn't illegal". There was the messy Mia Farrow situation, with allegations of sexual abuse, which may or may not have been well founded.

Here is a link to a recent article:
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/features/woody-allen-documentary-dylan-farrow-accusations-b1819570.html

My point was really, though, about whether people are inclined to believe or disbelieve allegations against people more readily dependent on whether the person in question is someone whose work they know and admire. I suspect that it is the case, and the Independent article mentions how people may apparently take sides dependent on whether they admire his films.

My point was precisely not about whether allegations were well-founded or not. However, if you wanted an example where there in admission of guilt (albeit in a plea bargain) you have Roman Polanski. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski

On the run since 1978, during which period he has continued to make movies, pick up awards, and also attract further disturbing allegations.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Eclectic Al said:


> As I say, "whatever was or wasn't illegal". There was the messy Mia Farrow situation, with allegations of sexual abuse, which may or may not have been well founded.
> 
> Here is a link to a recent article:
> https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/features/woody-allen-documentary-dylan-farrow-accusations-b1819570.html
> ...


Two independent New York state agencies investigated the Farrow allegations at the time, months long investigations. Both final reports found no evidence to support the accusations of molestation, but did find evidence of coaching.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> Two independent New York state agencies investigated the Farrow allegations at the time, months long investigations. Both final reports found no evidence to support the accusations of molestation, but did find evidence of coaching.


Indeed, however, we also have:
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/02/23/reviews/farrow-verdict.html

And "The evidence suggests that it is unlikely that he could be successfully prosecuted for sexual abuse. I am less certain, however, than is the Yale-New Haven team, that the evidence proves conclusively that there was no sexual abuse."

Of course, proving a negative is a bit of a challenge. However, I must reiterate that my point was precisely not about what Mr Allen did or did not do: it was about how those who like his films may be more inclined to adopt his side in a messy situation than they would be if it was someone else.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Eclectic Al said:


> ...
> However, I must reiterate that my point was precisely not about what Mr Allen did or did not do: it was about how those who like his films may be more inclined to adopt his side in a messy situation than they would be if it was someone else.


Absolutely. There's an inconsistency in applying the moral standard and in the outrage when it's violated. That's the point I was trying to make about Oscar Wilde. In the realm of politics, I remember very well the outrage over Clarence Thomas. But many of those same people who were outraged were soon finding excuses for everything Bill Clinton was accused of doing, or denigrating the accusers.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

James Levine was a sick man mentally who did some horrible things and seriously ill physically in his last years . But he was also a very great musician and conductor who accomplished so much in his life artistically . 
I've admired his conducting for decades both in opera and orchestral repertoire . He made so many superb recordings, both of operas and orchestral works with some of the world's greatest orchestras . 
He built the Met orchestra into one of the greatest orchestras of all time and brought them into the concert hall for orchestral concerts , something which it had never done before .
Levine expanded the Met's once stodgy and limited repertoire enormously with new or recent operas , exploration of obscure operatic repertoire and revived operas which had been long out of the repertoire despite the Met's notoriously conservative audience .
Rudolf Bing, who ran the Met from 1950 to 72 , would never have never dared to introduce operas like Lulu, Wozzeck he allowed ) , Moses and Aron, Erwartung, Bluebeard's Castle , Rise and Fall of the City Of Mahagonny and other operas which the Met did under him, conducted by him or others .
Eminent conductors rarely appeared at the Met under Bing, but under Levine the Met had Carlos Kleiber, Daniel Barenboim, Riccardo Muti, Simon Rattle, Bernard Haitink, Klaus Tennstedt, Giuseppe Sinopoli, Christophe Eschenbach , Valery Gergiev, Neeme Jarvi, Marek Kanowski, Charles Mackerras, 
Vaclav Neumann, Seiji Ozawa, Donald Runnicles, Christian Thieleman ,Vladimir Jurowski, and others, at least sometimes . Levine was accused of hogging the repertoire for himself, but at least he was there so much of the time in an era where critics were constantly complaining about "jet-setting conductors who spent so little time with their orchestras as music director ". His constant presence there raised musical standards to unprecedented high standards of performance at the Met . 
Levine mentored so many talented young singers who later became world famous .
Yes, not everyone likes or liked his conducting, but the same is true of every renowned conductor who has ever lived . 
Despite the terrible things he did in private life , his enormous accomplishments can never and must never be dismissed out of hand


----------



## ma7730 (Jun 8, 2015)

I'm not sad that his reputation has been tarnished. I'm sad for the victims of his abuse that they never received justice in a court of law. Truly disgusting the way that that was kept an "open secret" and he was completely enabled by people at the Met, BSO, etc. The fact that this was enabled for so many years is almost more horrible.

It also gives his a major role in the Lindemann Young Artists program a bad aftertaste. It's especially difficult to watch performances with him knowing the money will go to his estate: even after a $3.5 mil dollar severance package. All while Peter Gelb refuses to work with the orchestra, stage crew, etc to give them help during Covid. There is something seriously wrong with the Met, if not the opera industry as a whole.

I remember going to see Levine conduct and opera just after his surgery. When he rolled up in his wheel chair before the first act, the audience erupted into a standing ovation–myself included. It disgusts me now. The only thing that disgusts me more than my supporting him was the fact that some–many probably–in audience likely knew about what he was doing to those kids..and they applauded anyways.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Eclectic Al said:


> Of course, proving a negative is a bit of a challenge. However, I must reiterate that my point was precisely not about what Mr Allen did or did not do: it was about how those who like his films may be more inclined to adopt his side in a messy situation than they would be if it was someone else.


Perhaps. But I'm not convinced. In cases like this, if I care about the accused I do try to take a good look at the evidence. I have long quite liked Levine's music making but the evidence against him includes many of his victims coming forward and I was left in no doubt that he had behaved appallingly. On the other hand, I tend to find Allen a little irritating but the allegation against him is not widespread and is very suspect (the accuser had obvious reason to want to bring him down) so I was left feeling that he has probably been unfairly victimised (his career has been ruined by the allegations).

People who were once in love can do such things to each other when they separate. I remember once being friends with a couple that decided to get divorced. The wife wanted me to be a witness to sexual abuse of their daughter by her husband. I had witnessed no such thing, didn't believe it and refused (and she hasn't talked to me since). I believe she was bringing false allegations because she felt angry with the man and wanted to deny him access to his daughter - I'm not sure why as it was her decision to separate. She even got her solicitor onto me to persuade me to testify. My openly saying that I had seen no such thing made no difference to her (the solicitor) She was basically asking me to lie.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> I remember once being friends with a couple that decided to get divorced. The wife wanted me to be a witness to sexual abuse of their daughter by her husband. I had witnessed no such thing, didn't believe it and refused (and she hasn't talked to me since). I believe she was bringing false allegations because she felt angry with the man and wanted to deny him access to his daughter -* I'm not sure why as it was her decision to separate*. She even got her solicitor onto me to persuade me to testify. My openly saying that I had seen no such thing made no difference to her (the solicitor) She was basically asking me to lie.


sounds like a cluster B personality disoder, ie either narcissist, histrionic, antisocial or something like that. Normal people do not behave in this manner. It is often said that for example covert narcissists are hard to spot and you only truly become aware of what they are after you come into conflict with them. Only during the conflict their psychopathic tendencies become manifest.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

I do think there's probably a significant correlation between exhibiting histrionic behavior/mentality and making false or exaggerated accusations. At least I can support this anecdotally.


----------

