James Levine Suspended by The Met

[jean]

I think you are confusing us with those who are actually in a position to get criminals dealt with.

[french frank]

As for attitudes changing, all this was well flagged up by feminists in the 1970s. What is truly shocking now is how little actually chaged.

And arguably made 'society' decide that such 'practices' were to be considered criminal. Has little changed? I'd say the climate in now quite different from how things were in the 1970s.

[teamsaint]

Part of the value of threads like this is to become better informed by others, or to learn how others are thinking. It is really easy to have lazy assumptions about how things are, or have ( or haven't) changed. I'm amazed by apologists for Robert King, but I probably ought to just get over it. Having the help of friends in high places, is, I suppose, just part of life that won't change too soon.

Anyway, re FF's #47, I'm sure both that the climate has changed considerably since the 70's, and equally sure that those things of which Levine seems to be accused were as unacceptable then as they are now.

Perhaps the climate has changed for those without influence, ( teachers who have to reveal irrelevant but potentially career threatening details on DBS checks about household members ), but less so for those more able to use influence to protect themselves.

[underthecountertenor]

AFAIK you cannot actually hear Levine, or Pickett or King on any of their recordings. In fact one may well make a case for arguing that their contributions are greatly overplayed anyway. Criminal though their actions may be, by blacklisting their recordings one is effectively penalising the hundreds of other musicians who contributed greatly to each of these issues. And, frankly, let's leave the mudslinging to the gutter press, eh?

Just to clarify my perhaps too elliptical statement, when I said 'don't hear so much of Philip Pickett these days', what I meant was that don't recall hearing his recordings played, and therefore his name mentioned, on Radio 3 since his conviction. Whereas, if I am not misremembering, King's recordings continued to be played whilst he was at HMP. I intended to make no more than a statement of fact based on my (possibly faulty) perception and recollection, and certainly not to sling mud.

There are of course other possible reasons why Pickett's recordings are now rarely broadcast: perhaps his style has gone out of fashion?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

IIRC, uct, King's recordings weren't broadcast whilst he was imprisoned - and the King's Consort renamed itself for the duration (or, perhaps more accurately, they ceased performing, but many of the players performed together under a different name).

[underthecountertenor]

IIRC, uct, King's recordings weren't broadcast whilst he was imprisoned - and the King's Consort renamed itself for the duration (or, perhaps more accurately, they ceased performing, but many of the players performed together under a different name).

The latter is certainly the case, fhg. Matthew Halls carried on, and I think there was some argy-bargy over the name, which eventually reverted to Robert King - Halls's group is called The Retrospect Ensemble.

It may be that I have a false memory of hearing King's recordings at least once on R3 whilst he was imprisoned, but I am not aware of there having been any formal policy decision not to play them.

[MrGongGong]

The latter is certainly the case, fhg. Matthew Halls carried on, and I think there was some argy-bargy over the name, which eventually reverted to Robert King - Halls's group is called The Retrospect Ensemble.

It may be that I have a false memory of hearing King's recordings at least once on R3 whilst he was imprisoned, but I am not aware of there having been any formal policy decision not to play them.

I think the Retrospect Ensemble was folded when King was released and "carried on where he left off"
something that many people found (or still do find) rather "iffy"

[jean]

And arguably made 'society' decide that such 'practices' were to be considered criminal. Has little changed? I'd say the climate in now quite different from how things were in the 1970s.

Certainly it is - but I think we thought back then that since what needed to be done was blindingly clear, it would not take so long for it to happen.

And I certainly didn't realise until quite recently the extent to which it hadn't happened.

[underthecountertenor]

I think the Retrospect Ensemble was folded when King was released and "carried on where he left off"
something that many people found (or still do find) rather "iffy"

Yes indeed. I know a few musicians who felt very conflicted about working for King again, but in the end couldn't afford not to.

[Dave2002]

What on earth is customer practice?

Are the customers the recipients of the unwanted attention whose practice it was not to complain?

As for attitudes changing, all this was well flagged up by feminists in the 1970s. What is truly shocking now is how little actually changed.

I apologise for the wording - perhaps that was not quite what I meant, but it's hard to know how to express some of these issues.
There is also a question about whether there should be discussion at all - but since we've started it's probably a good thing to get some things out. Nobody who received genuinely unwanted attention should have had to keep quiet, but some probably did, and some probably do still nowadays. This probably applies to both males and females, though for all I know the laws for males and females may still be different, in the UK at least - I haven't checked. They certainly were some while back.

There are big problems nowadays with young people, many of whom do commit what are now offences (sexting etc.) and some which have been offences for most of my lifetime. There are whole areas which are treated as grey areas - under age sex is one. If both parties are willing and only slightly under age they may not wish to complain, but if parents or teachers or police find out, then problems arise. There is no point in pretending it doesn't happen - it clearly does.

Such issues affect a far greater number of people and proportion of the population than those affecting few aged conductors - though I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be follow up.

Age disparity is also taken to indicate "issues", but it's not always so obvious. People such as G.F.Watts have married much younger women, and though in his case I assume everything was legal, it does not automatically follow that older people can't have good relationships with younger ones, and that there are automatic grounds for suspicion. Where does one draw the line with age issues? In some countries it has been perfectly legal for really rather young women to marry much older men - possibly without their will. I would personally question the law in some countries, but are we to restrict discussion only to the UK or to the USA? So the law and culture do have an impact on all these matters.

[jean]

Perhaps the climate has changed for those without influence...but less so for those more able to use influence to protect themselves.

A very good point.

[MrGongGong]

Yes indeed. I know a few musicians who felt very conflicted about working for King again, but in the end couldn't afford not to.

I know a couple who refuse to work with him regardless of the financial "hit".

[underthecountertenor]

I know a couple who refuse to work with him regardless of the financial "hit".

I know one or two also. Still others take the view that he has done his time and is rehabilitated, and therefore have no problem at all with working for him. I do however feel for those who would very much prefer not to do so but feel (quite understandably) that they have no real choice, with mouths to feed and an increasingly limited amount of available alternative work.

[Dave2002]

I know a couple who refuse to work with him regardless of the financial "hit".

They are certainly entitled to do that, but how should one treat someone who has committed a criminal offence, and also been punished for it? Does it depend on what the offence is/was? We once employed someone to do building work who subsequently turned out to be a benefit cheat, and was imprisoned for that. Although we have had no occasion to ask for his services again, should he be denied work in the future? Should we shun him if we meet him in the street? [I still don't know ...] These are quite big issues - retribution, rehabilitation etc. I suspect that many of us mentally put different crimes into different categories, and that affects the way we treat people after they have been imprisoned or punished. We may feel that sex and power exploitation categories are more likely to affect our relationships with the criminals adversely than some others.

[MrGongGong]

They are certainly entitled to do that, but how should one treat someone who has committed a criminal offence, and also been punished for it? Does it depend on what the offence is/was? We once employed someone to do building work who subsequently turned out to be a benefit cheat, and was imprisoned for that. Although we have had no occasion to ask for his services again, should he be denied work in the future? Should we shun him if we meet him in the street? [I still don't know ...] These are quite big issues - retribution, rehabilitation etc. I suspect that many of us mentally put different crimes into different categories, and that affects the way we treat people after they have been imprisoned or punished. We may feel that sex and power exploitation categories are more likely to affect our relationships with the criminals adversely than some others.

Having worked in prisons and with ex-offenders, i'm very aware of how difficult life is after they have been released.
However, in this case, I do think that there appears to be an element of "carrying on as if nothing happened" which does adversely affect the victims and making it possible for them to have a life should (IMV) be the priority regardless of how "wonderful" his music is.
This case does seem to have been treated very differently from others which is what makes many uncomfortable.
No-one is so "great" to be allowed to behave appallingly and if the cost means that they have to find another career (which is often the case) then we really aren't losing so much.