James Levine deserves Talk Classical's Opprobrium, NOT Adoration

12032 Views 158 Replies 62 Participants Last post by larold, 5 d ago

Knorf

Discussion Starter · Mar 18, 2021

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.

Reactions: 5

101 - 120 of 159 Posts

Sid James

· #101 · Mar 21, 2021 (Edited)

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

· #102 · Mar 21, 2021 (Edited)

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

· #103 · Mar 21, 2021

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

ArtMusic

· #104 · Mar 21, 2021

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

Eclectic Al

· #105 · Mar 21, 2021

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.

See less See more

milk

· #106 · Mar 21, 2021

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

· #107 · Mar 21, 2021 (Edited)

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.

See less See more

SanAntone

· #108 · Mar 21, 2021 (Edited)

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

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.

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

· #109 · Mar 21, 2021

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

· #110 · Mar 21, 2021

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.

Reactions: 1

superhorn

· #111 · Mar 21, 2021

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

See less See more

Reactions: 1

ma7730

· #112 · Mar 21, 2021

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.

See less See more

Reactions: 4

Enthusiast

· #113 · Mar 22, 2021

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.

See less See more

Jacck

· #114 · Mar 22, 2021

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

· #115 · Mar 22, 2021

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.

Simplicissimus

· #116 · 20 d ago (Edited by Moderator)

Moderator note: this and the next eleven posts were moved out of the Current Listening thread to here.

Monsalvat said:
Robert Schumann: Symphony No. 3 in E flat major, Op. 97, “Rheinische”
James Levine: Berliner Philharmoniker (1987)

I think this full-bodied Romantic approach works very nicely with the symphonies of Schumann. One could also argue that these works, composed by a master of piano miniatures and Lieder, deserve a more intimate approach, but I would disagree after hearing this beautiful recording.

I find Levine's work with the Berliner Philharmoniker simply outstanding. He had great relationships with several orchestras.

Reactions: 5

Enthusiast

· #117 · 19 d ago

Simplicissimus said:
I find Levine's work with the Berliner Philharmoniker simply outstanding. He had great relationships with several orchestras.

Sorry, I can't resist. It was his relations with one of his orchestras that led to him losing his job.

Reactions: 3

fluteman

· #118 · 19 d ago

Enthusiast said:
Sorry, I can't resist. It was his relations with one of his orchestras that led to him losing his job.

After which, he sued the Metropolitan Opera and received a multi-million dollar settlement payment. I'm no James Levine worshipper, but I think comments like this should be resisted. As a lawyer, I long ago learned that what happens in court is always much closer to the truth than what is said in the media or online. I'd rather stick to Current Listening.

Reactions: 5

Enthusiast

· #119 · 18 d ago

fluteman said:
After which, he sued the Metropolitan Opera and received a multi-million dollar settlement payment. I'm no James Levine worshipper, but I think comments like this should be resisted. As a lawyer, I long ago learned that what happens in court is always much closer to the truth than what is said in the media or online. I'd rather stick to Current Listening.

I certainly agree about the media. (I'm not sure I agree that the court always comes to the truth, though.) Mine was just a joke and at least it led to your correcting/updating the information. Is he working again, then?

PeterKC

· #120 · 18 d ago

Enthusiast said:
I certainly agree about the media. (I'm not sure I agree that the court always comes to the truth, though.) Mine was just a joke and at least it led to your correcting/updating the information. Is he working again, then?

Died: Mar. 9, 2021.

Reactions: 1

101 - 120 of 159 Posts