A sad end to his life, poor man.
James Levine deserves Talk Classical's Opprobrium, NOT Adoration
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.
"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.
121 - 140 of 159 Posts
This is partially a response to you and partially a response to @fluteman:A sad end to his life, poor man.
I'll point out that they settled, so it was taken care of outside of court even though a lawsuit had been filed. And the likely reason Levine came out on top was because his contract didn't have a morals cause. James Levine and Met Opera Settle Suit Over Sexual Misconduct Firing (Published 2019)
Levine probably had very good reason to not want the case to go to discovery, and I'd guess that some people at the Met would have known about it over the years, so both sides had an incentive to settle out of court. Levine was not vindicated in court, and the settlement was essentially over the wrongful termination and not the (alleged) sexual misconduct. I've enjoyed lots of his music, including the Schumann Third that spurred this discussion, but he was a terrible person who hurt others where they are vulnerable. Several of the allegations are recounted in the article I linked.A judge dismissed almost all of Mr. Levine’s defamation claims against the Met this spring, but Mr. Levine’s breach-of-contract claims may have been strengthened by the fact that his agreement with the Met did not contain a so-called “morals clause” holding him to certain standards of behavior. Mr. Levine’s lawyers, who denied all the allegations against him, argued in court papers that the contract contained no provisions that would have allowed the Met to remove Mr. Levine “due to alleged or actual misconduct or wrongdoing.”
Oh, and a technical quibble: while he had a sad end, he was anything but poor. He got $3.5 million USD out of that settlement, and had previously been collecting a $400,000 salary, and a $27,000 fee per performance.
OK, that seems to balance the question. Thanks.This is partially a response to you and partially a response to @fluteman:
I'll point out that they settled, so it was taken care of outside of court even though a lawsuit had been filed. And the likely reason Levine came out on top was because his contract didn't have a morals cause. James Levine and Met Opera Settle Suit Over Sexual Misconduct Firing (Published 2019)
Levine probably had very good reason to not want the case to go to discovery, and I'd guess that some people at the Met would have known about it over the years, so both sides had an incentive to settle out of court. Levine was not vindicated in court, and the settlement was essentially over the wrongful termination and not the (alleged) sexual misconduct. I've enjoyed lots of his music, including the Schumann Third that spurred this discussion, but he was a terrible person who hurt others where they are vulnerable. Several of the allegations are recounted in the article I linked.
Oh, and a technical quibble: while he had a sad end, he was anything but poor. He got $3.5 million USD out of that settlement, and had previously been collecting a $400,000 salary, and a $27,000 fee per performance.
As for my use of the word "poor" - I was referring to how his life ended in disgrace and infamy whether deserved or undeserved. I never imagined he might have been short of money but I guess artists of his calibre need to make music and, perhaps, to garner the applause.
All very reasonable and intelligent speculation (except that a settlement of an active lawsuit is not "out of court" -- it must be court-approved). but still speculation. My own speculation: Mr. Levine's conduct throughout his professional career, whatever it was exactly and in specific instances, was deemed tolerable, or even acceptable, by those with power, control and/or influence in his business. Then, one day, public opinion tipped too far in the other direction, and suddenly his conduct in numerous instances over the past several decades was outrageous and intolerable, with everyone falling over each other attempting to condemn him more strongly, in many cases to distract us from the question of why such outrageous conduct had been accepted or tolerated over so many decades by those with power, control and/or influence.This is partially a response to you and partially a response to @fluteman:
I'll point out that they settled, so it was taken care of outside of court even though a lawsuit had been filed. And the likely reason Levine came out on top was because his contract didn't have a morals cause. James Levine and Met Opera Settle Suit Over Sexual Misconduct Firing (Published 2019)
Levine probably had very good reason to not want the case to go to discovery, and I'd guess that some people at the Met would have known about it over the years, so both sides had an incentive to settle out of court. Levine was not vindicated in court, and the settlement was essentially over the wrongful termination and not the (alleged) sexual misconduct. I've enjoyed lots of his music, including the Schumann Third that spurred this discussion, but he was a terrible person who hurt others where they are vulnerable. Several of the allegations are recounted in the article I linked.
Oh, and a technical quibble: while he had a sad end, he was anything but poor. He got $3.5 million USD out of that settlement, and had previously been collecting a $400,000 salary, and a $27,000 fee per performance.
Indeed, who are those "dark forces" (hidden) who have allowed this and now wave like wind vanes on the issues of the day.All very reasonable and intelligent speculation (except that a settlement of an active lawsuit is not "out of court" -- it must be court-approved). but still speculation. My own speculation: Mr. Levine's conduct throughout his professional career, whatever it was exactly and in specific instances, was deemed tolerable, or even acceptable, by those with power, control and/or influence in his business. Then, one day, public opinion tipped too far in the other direction, and suddenly his conduct in numerous instances over the past several decades was outrageous and intolerable, with everyone falling over each other attempting to condemn him more strongly, in many cases to distract us from the question of why such outrageous conduct had been accepted or tolerated over so many decades by those with power, control and/or influence.
This discussion is getting to the point where it probably merits its own thread so we don't clog up the current listening thread. I included the phrase "out of court" to emphasize that Levine was not vindicated or found not liable by a judge or jury, but through private negotiations. I am not a lawyer. I think we can agree that the alleged behavior was reprehensible and disgraceful. Since it didn't go to trial, the allegations were never aired and proven in court; I think they are plausible and numerous, but this may be the speculation to which you refer since the settlement precluded the discovery process so we just don't have all of the facts. Your main point is a grave one, and one to which I briefly alluded in my previous post; that there existed a wider system in place protecting Levine for decades. I don't believe anyone in power at the Met seriously believed this constituted acceptable behavior, but I would agree that if they knew, or even suspected, then they must have found it tolerable until late 2017. By making a public fuss over suspending, investigating, and firing Levine, the management could in effect scapegoat Levine and wash their own hands of their complicity in covering up the abuse. This is even more speculative, but it is a troubling thought indeed. (And yet despite this, I was still able to enjoy his Schumann Third... I didn't expect such a lively discussion to spring up as a result of that recording.)All very reasonable and intelligent speculation (except that a settlement of an active lawsuit is not "out of court" -- it must be court-approved). but still speculation. My own speculation: Mr. Levine's conduct throughout his professional career, whatever it was exactly and in specific instances, was deemed tolerable, or even acceptable, by those with power, control and/or influence in his business. Then, one day, public opinion tipped too far in the other direction, and suddenly his conduct in numerous instances over the past several decades was outrageous and intolerable, with everyone falling over each other attempting to condemn him more strongly, in many cases to distract us from the question of why such outrageous conduct had been accepted or tolerated over so many decades by those with power, control and/or influence.
It is strange how an issue can be accepted (or, rather, ignored) and then suddenly it is seen as intolerable. I can think of many such issues over the years. When I was a child (I am nearly 70 now) I remember there being whispers (often among adults) about this or that teacher having a taste for young boys. I didn't really understand - I was too young - but knew that there were fairly relaxed concerns about those people. One was believed to exploit vulnerable boys who he kindly looked after (he would have them stay at his house). The other was known to get sentimental and a little "touchy" about the more attractive boys but I am very sure he never went further with kids at the school.Indeed, who are those "dark forces" (hidden) who have allowed this and now wave like wind vanes on the issues of the day.
These days such rumours could not stand without investigation and we as a nation have become very much less tolerant of men (or women, I'm sure) with such tastes. I can remember that no-one in the 60s and 70s seemed that disturbed by stories of what rock stars did with groupies (who were often underage) but now, again, we have no tolerance for such behaviour. How did things change? Partly it was about our coming to understand how serious the damage done could be. And when that understanding was combined with the recognition that many such cases involved abuse of power (so even if no violence was used the acts involved could hardly be considered consensual) I guess our eyes were opened.
I'm glad you understand we are both speculating about all of this. What is a lot less speculative is that, in addition to his numerous great recordings of orchestral music, many featuring the Chicago and London Symphony Orchestras, Levine raised the level of the Metropolitan Opera Orchestra to the point that it was one of best in the world and worthy of recording non-opera, orchestral music in a stellar series of recordings, mainly for DG (see below). Alas, current Met director Peter Gelb has made the quality of the orchestra a lower priority, and while it is still a fine ensemble, many of its biggest star players have defected to other top orchestras during his tenure.This discussion is getting to the point where it probably merits its own thread so we don't clog up the current listening thread. I included the phrase "out of court" to emphasize that Levine was not vindicated or found not liable by a judge or jury, but through private negotiations. I am not a lawyer. I think we can agree that the alleged behavior was reprehensible and disgraceful. Since it didn't go to trial, the allegations were never aired and proven in court; I think they are plausible and numerous, but this may be the speculation to which you refer since the settlement precluded the discovery process so we just don't have all of the facts. Your main point is a grave one, and one to which I briefly alluded in my previous post; that there existed a wider system in place protecting Levine for decades. I don't believe anyone in power at the Met seriously believed this constituted acceptable behavior, but I would agree that if they knew, or even suspected, then they must have found it tolerable until late 2017. By making a public fuss over suspending, investigating, and firing Levine, the management could in effect scapegoat Levine and wash their own hands of their complicity in covering up the abuse. This is even more speculative, but it is a troubling thought indeed. (And yet despite this, I was still able to enjoy his Schumann Third... I didn't expect such a lively discussion to spring up as a result of that recording.)
I have now passed the age of 70 and in that terrible time that lies behind usIt is strange how an issue can be accepted (or, rather, ignored) and then suddenly it is seen as intolerable. I can think of many such issues over the years. When I was a child (I am nearly 70 now) I remember there being whispers (often among adults) about this or that teacher having a taste for young boys. I didn't really understand - I was too young - but knew that there were fairly relaxed concerns about those people. One was believed to exploit vulnerable boys who he kindly looked after (he would have them stay at his house). The other was known to get sentimental and a little "touchy" about the more attractive boys but I am very sure he never went further with kids at the school.
These days such rumours could not stand without investigation and we as a nation have become very much less tolerant of men (or women, I'm sure) with such tastes. I can remember that no-one in the 60s and 70s seemed that disturbed by stories of what rock stars did with groupies (who were often underage) but now, again, we have no tolerance for such behaviour. How did things change? Partly it was about our coming to understand how serious the damage done could be. And when that understanding was combined with the recognition that many such cases involved abuse of power (so even if no violence was used the acts involved could hardly be considered consensual) I guess our eyes were opened.
(our youth) where all kinds of pernicious things happened but where the social interaction was more civilized than today. There is now a crusade going on but the mutual relations are serious disturbed. Politeness is now the exception where it used to be more the rule.It is of course a good thing to denounce certain things, but who are they who are blaming, is it the old motto to fight for a better world ,and what has it achieved. We depend on those who have power and can support us in our career. Our desire to succeed also enslaves us.I'm afraid we have a long way to go and many are demanding changes today.
There is the pool of self righteousness that casts its own shadow ahead.
Who said "that everything must change for everything to remain the same".
I'm sorry if my post about Levine's work with orchestras was insensitive or offensive. I do know very well what he's accused of doing (and apparently did), so it's not that I am oblivious. I've admired Levine's artistry since he was the music director of the Ravinia Festival many years ago, and I consistently followed his career because I very much admire his conducting in the operatic and orchestral repertoires. When I posted, I presumed that the topic was just music, not morals, but I think I should have given more thought to the matter. With respect to Levine's "relationships with orchestras," I was not being sarcastic (I eschew sarcasm), but rather was drawing on years of reading and listening to interviews with professional musicians who worked with Levine and reported that he had excellent rapport with the orchestra members and soloists. My uncle, who was principal cello of the National (DC) Symphony Orchestra, knew Levine and reported the same. My uncle passed away just before the Levine scandal exploded on the CM scene, which spared him from what I'm sure would have been an upsetting situation. What I'm sorry about is that by prattling on about Levine, I might hurt or offend people close to the events. If I have done so, I am truly sorry. I will refrain from mentioning him in this forum in the future.
So many words, regarding someone who deserves few.
The most crucial idea applies to everyone, and is quite simple: It is more important to be the best human you can be, even while endeavoring to become the best musician ( or whatever ) possible.
James Levine undoubtedly knew that, but still used his power to satiate himself at the expense of the vulnerable.
I have and desire none of his recordings, and l hope the little f*** is burning in Hell.
The most crucial idea applies to everyone, and is quite simple: It is more important to be the best human you can be, even while endeavoring to become the best musician ( or whatever ) possible.
James Levine undoubtedly knew that, but still used his power to satiate himself at the expense of the vulnerable.
I have and desire none of his recordings, and l hope the little f*** is burning in Hell.
"So many words", and yet you add yours, which say nothing more, less really, than those of the first post of this thread. You express self-righteous high indignation against someone who is now dead. That you have none of his recordings and hope he is burning in Hell means nothing. Better to ask oneself how he was able to act as he did for nearly his entire life and career with no reprisals, and how something similar can be prevented in the future.So many words, regarding someone who deserves few.
The most crucial idea applies to everyone, and is quite simple: It is more important to be the best human you can be, even while endeavoring to become the best musician ( or whatever ) possible.
James Levine undoubtedly knew that, but still used his power to satiate himself at the expense of the vulnerable.
I have and desire none of his recordings, and l hope the little f*** is burning in Hell.
And if you think James Levine's case was a one-off, consider the Swiss-American conductor Johannes Somary (1935-2011). Even if the many allegations against him over a long period are only partially true, he was far worse than Levine. Somary's victims were disbelieved or ignored, or their allegations suppressed, until well after his death.
I understand not wanting to buy his recordings because of the horrible things he did. I also understand if you still want to listen to his recordings. There was a really funny bit Pete Davidson did on this topic when it was found out R Kelly did similar things
Hm. I am a few decades younger but I do remember that the mere (and eventually false) rumor that a high military official was gay (no preference for underage implied) was enough to terminate a career in 1980s Germany (the reason given was indirect, that he might be vulnerable to extortion because the societal stigma if the proclivity was made public).
However, I also know from the literature there was a kind of "overshoot" of the so-called sexual revolution that lasted through the 70s or even longer, so for a while at least in some circles underage seemed not an impediment at all for sexual relations (certainly not with anyone older than about 15, cf. that infamous demand for lowering age of consent signed by these French intellectuals).
Fortunately, the attitudes here have changed but I think it's a bit facile to get morally outraged decades later about behaviour that was more or less accepted (just think of some horrid things we accept nowadays because of the zeitgeist, and if you cannot think of any, this just shows how much easier it is to be morally superior decades later in hindsight).
I have still not really understood to which extent Levine was molesting (or worse) children (under 14) or if he used his power and influence to seduce ca. 17 year old music students who could have walked away (at the expense of career options). (The cases that came out years later seem to have been mostly of the second kind.)
I find it extremely disingeneous that such cases (and similar ones between "powerful men" and women) are frequently confounded in such scandals. The former (like Polanski raping a 13 yo girl) are criminal behavior (and it was not "grey"/borderline 50 years ago) and it's a scandal if this is not brought to court (and e.g. Polanski cannot travel to certain countries because he would in fact be prosecuted there). The second kind is morally wrong but far more of a grey area, both morally and legally, despite "power differentials" and 16 or 17 year olds being legal minors (but clearly not children, age of consent in most countries is 14-16, so there clearly is a widely recognized difference between sexual relations of older persons with 12 year olds vs. 16 year olds). Of course, one can criticize behavior in the grey area but for me the difference between the two cases is quite large.
However, I also know from the literature there was a kind of "overshoot" of the so-called sexual revolution that lasted through the 70s or even longer, so for a while at least in some circles underage seemed not an impediment at all for sexual relations (certainly not with anyone older than about 15, cf. that infamous demand for lowering age of consent signed by these French intellectuals).
Fortunately, the attitudes here have changed but I think it's a bit facile to get morally outraged decades later about behaviour that was more or less accepted (just think of some horrid things we accept nowadays because of the zeitgeist, and if you cannot think of any, this just shows how much easier it is to be morally superior decades later in hindsight).
I have still not really understood to which extent Levine was molesting (or worse) children (under 14) or if he used his power and influence to seduce ca. 17 year old music students who could have walked away (at the expense of career options). (The cases that came out years later seem to have been mostly of the second kind.)
I find it extremely disingeneous that such cases (and similar ones between "powerful men" and women) are frequently confounded in such scandals. The former (like Polanski raping a 13 yo girl) are criminal behavior (and it was not "grey"/borderline 50 years ago) and it's a scandal if this is not brought to court (and e.g. Polanski cannot travel to certain countries because he would in fact be prosecuted there). The second kind is morally wrong but far more of a grey area, both morally and legally, despite "power differentials" and 16 or 17 year olds being legal minors (but clearly not children, age of consent in most countries is 14-16, so there clearly is a widely recognized difference between sexual relations of older persons with 12 year olds vs. 16 year olds). Of course, one can criticize behavior in the grey area but for me the difference between the two cases is quite large.
Perhaps all of these “words” should remind us that you cannot separate true morality from music (or for that matter, from anything in life or living it to the fullest). The true question for an individuals life might best be summarized by my Daddy’s words when hearing of the passing of an acquaintance: “Did he finish well?”
There are two dates important to every grave stone marker: date of birth and date of death…what occurs between those two dates (more often than not) is what we call “Life” and “Living”…and how fast is passes.
May we all choose to pour our lives rightly into those we come in contact with each day.
There are two dates important to every grave stone marker: date of birth and date of death…what occurs between those two dates (more often than not) is what we call “Life” and “Living”…and how fast is passes.
May we all choose to pour our lives rightly into those we come in contact with each day.
I’m sorry but are you actually saying his behaviour was more or less accepted back in the day so we shouldn’t get outraged? And that music students could just walk away at the expense of career options is obviously completely unacceptable. You should never not find work because you don’t want to do something sexual with a superior. You’re kind of brushing off what he did. The music student thing alone is absolutely disgusting and was not accepted back in the day, and the fact that you have still not understood the extent of to which extent Levine was molesting children is not an argument but your problem. There’s been enough research done and multiple people standing up and sharing their experiencesHm. I am a few decades younger but I do remember that the mere (and eventually false) rumor that a high military official was gay (no preference for underage implied) was enough to terminate a career in 1980s Germany (the reason given was indirect, that he might be vulnerable to extortion because the societal stigma if the proclivity was made public).
However, I also know from the literature there was a kind of "overshoot" of the so-called sexual revolution that lasted through the 70s or even longer, so for a while at least in some circles underage seemed not an impediment at all for sexual relations (certainly not with anyone older than about 15, cf. that infamous demand for lowering age of consent signed by these French intellectuals).
Fortunately, the attitudes here have changed but I think it's a bit facile to get morally outraged decades later about behaviour that was more or less accepted (just think of some horrid things we accept nowadays because of the zeitgeist, and if you cannot think of any, this just shows how much easier it is to be morally superior decades later in hindsight).
I have still not really understood to which extent Levine was molesting (or worse) children (under 14) or if he used his power and influence to seduce ca. 17 year old music students who could have walked away (at the expense of career options). (The cases that came out years later seem to have been mostly of the second kind.)
I find it extremely disingeneous that such cases (and similar ones between "powerful men" and women) are frequently confounded in such scandals. The former (like Polanski raping a 13 yo girl) are criminal behavior (and it was not "grey"/borderline 50 years ago) and it's a scandal if this is not brought to court (and e.g. Polanski cannot travel to certain countries because he would in fact be prosecuted there). The second kind is morally wrong but far more of a grey area, both morally and legally, despite "power differentials" and 16 or 17 year olds being legal minors (but clearly not children, age of consent in most countries is 14-16, so there clearly is a widely recognized difference between sexual relations of older persons with 12 year olds vs. 16 year olds). Of course, one can criticize behavior in the grey area but for me the difference between the two cases is quite large.
So was he in fact molesting children or doesn't it matter because trading sex for career options with 17 year olds is basically the same and as bad as raping children? I find ignoring the difference between such cases about as outrageous (and feeling outraged seems the currency here) as other seem to find behavior I consider a more grey area.
That doesn't mean I find it acceptable, I obviously do not, but I don't think it is criminal in the way raping 12 year olds is and I have the impression that in Levine's and other case it is rarely made clear if we are talking about molesting 12 year olds or about much older people who physically could hardly have been at "the mercy" of pudgy middle aged man. And where we are also relying on "he said this - the other one said that" wrt (non)consensual sex etc. 20-30 years later.
I have trouble to understand how someone should have been able to get way with the former behavior (i.e. molesting dozens/hundreds of young (< 14) children for decades; there would have to have been dozens of willfully ignorant (or criminally cooperating) people, hundreds of families "paid off", basically a network of Epsteinian dimension for Levine to avoid getting into jail... He was not a music teacher at a boarding school.
That doesn't mean I find it acceptable, I obviously do not, but I don't think it is criminal in the way raping 12 year olds is and I have the impression that in Levine's and other case it is rarely made clear if we are talking about molesting 12 year olds or about much older people who physically could hardly have been at "the mercy" of pudgy middle aged man. And where we are also relying on "he said this - the other one said that" wrt (non)consensual sex etc. 20-30 years later.
I have trouble to understand how someone should have been able to get way with the former behavior (i.e. molesting dozens/hundreds of young (< 14) children for decades; there would have to have been dozens of willfully ignorant (or criminally cooperating) people, hundreds of families "paid off", basically a network of Epsteinian dimension for Levine to avoid getting into jail... He was not a music teacher at a boarding school.
The far more important question is, what should we be outraged about today? If a society accepts or at least tolerates bad behavior, there will be those who indulge in it. I agree fully with @Kreisler jr that concerning ourselves with bad and immoral ideas and behavior that too many deem acceptable now, i.e., in the present, is more important than expressing righteous indignation over acts of decades ago committed by those who have passed away such as James Levine.I’m sorry but are you actually saying his behaviour was more or less accepted back in the day so we shouldn’t get outraged?
The terminations in recent years of Amsterdam Concertgebouw conductor Daniele Gatti and Cleveland Orchestra concertmaster William Preucil are signs that the classical music world has improved in this regard.
I never cared for Levine, but I think his case is less serious than something like Foucault commiting pedophile acts with Tunisian children, because Levine's conducting is unaffected by his sexual abuse, while Foucault's writings, philosophy and worldview were probably influenced by his perversion.
In the US it is criminal. But depending on the age of the victim, I imagine there is a difference in how quickly the thoughts of ones fellow inmates will turn to castration with a rusty spoon.So was he in fact molesting children or doesn't it matter because trading sex for career options with 17 year olds is basically the same and as bad as raping children? I find ignoring the difference between such cases about as outrageous (and feeling outraged seems the currency here) as other seem to find behavior I consider a more grey area.
That doesn't mean I find it acceptable, I obviously do not, but I don't think it is criminal in the way raping 12 year olds is and I have the impression that in Levine's and other case it is rarely made clear if we are talking about molesting 12 year olds or about much older people who physically could hardly have been at "the mercy" of pudgy middle aged man. And where we are also relying on "he said this - the other one said that" wrt (non)consensual sex etc. 20-30 years later.
I have trouble to understand how someone should have been able to get way with the former behavior (i.e. molesting dozens/hundreds of young (< 14) children for decades; there would have to have been dozens of willfully ignorant (or criminally cooperating) people, hundreds of families "paid off", basically a network of Epsteinian dimension for Levine to avoid getting into jail... He was not a music teacher at a boarding school.
Sorry, but I'm with Eva on this one — coercion through differential power is throughly despicable and should be prosecuted.
121 - 140 of 159 Posts
Classical Music Forum
A forum community dedicated to classical music musicians and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about arrangements, collections, techniques, instruments, styles, reviews, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Seattleoperafan
470 Replies
Art Rock
461 Replies
PHOENIXFIRERAPTOR
418 Replies
Recommended Communities
