James Levine Suspended by The Met

[Dave2002]

MrGG

Fair enough, though perhaps not everyone is able to take up a new career, or maybe before conviction they really were very good, and therefore feel it best to carry on career wise in the same way. Presumably the Prison Service gives some advice as to what to do after release. Obviously in the case of careers which involve working with others who may know the person, or who have simply become aware of him (or possibly her - though less likely) this may present difficulties, and there is no reason to assume that others in "the team" will behave as sympathetically as they did before the conviction, nor should they have to. Someone with a previous high profile might be difficult to fit back into society "anonymously".

ts - msg 47

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.

You may be right, though I have almost no knowledge of what "those things" are - since this has only been made relatively public recently. I gather there have been rumours for many years, but I haven't been aware of them. I thought some of Levine's work was very good - such as his early recording of Mahler 1 and perhaps also a Brahms symphony, and I can't honestly say that my view would change in the light of extraneous information such as that now coming out. I remember writing appreciatively about Levine in some more recent Proms performances - I can't surely be expected to "unwrite" what I wrote then.

I really don't know about Levine - and still don't. If his behaviour was similar to a prominent actor, then perhaps he will be treated in a similar way - but I just haven't a handle on that yet. The other case does definitely seem to have shown a serious abuse of power etc. which film and theatre companies, as well as audiences, are now coming to terms with.

[french frank]

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.

A very good point.

I don't think I completely agree with that. I think those who offend are much more likely to run the risk of victims going to the police whereas in the past they went to those in relevant authority; and they were the ones who tried to hush things up. Of course, there will be some victims who are too afraid to report such incidents in their particular context. But in the past people didn't go to the police because the behaviour wasn't thought of as 'criminal'. Unpleasant and humiliating, yes. But not criminal. That has changed.

[Beef Oven!]

The victims always thought it was criminal, but 'society' didn't. An important distinction, IMV.

[teamsaint]

I would think that the children abused in various UK choirs would have thought that what was happening to them was illegal. The fact that they might not have had the resources or support to report it appropriately is a different matter.

[french frank]

The victims always thought it was criminal,

I'm trying to trace the history of legislation on sexual offences, pre the 2003 Act. I think that back in more innocent times, children were not aware of such behaviour until they suffered it. Why would they think it was illegal?

[Beef Oven!]

I would think that the children abused in various UK choirs would have thought that what was happening to them was illegal. The fact that they might not have had the resources or support to report it appropriately is a different matter.

That's my thinking too. Some in society have changed their opinions, and now happily agree with the victims (ff seems to be one), but the people who have lived cheek by jowl with nasty people never needed to think twice.

[teamsaint]

I was in a cathedral choir in the 1970's.

There was a man who followed various choirs around, a kind of stalker, and we were warned ( and didn't really need warning) to keep away from him. We were aware of some of the sorts of things that might be attempted, and I think were pretty clear that it would be illegal. So we were aware that there was potentially illegal activity.

The assistant organist of our cathedral was later convicted of a series of offences , and sent to prison. ( No nice music industry rehabilitation for him). These offences were, to the best of my knowledge committed after I left, but if anything untoward had been tried on us , we would have been quite sure that it was illegal. I am in no doubt of that.

[Beef Oven!]

Yeah, somehow when my mum and dad told me not to talk to strangers, don't take sweets off people you don't know etc, it landed....... I got it.

[french frank]

That's my thinking too. Some in society have changed their opinions, and now happily agree with the victims (ff seems to be one), but the people who have lived cheek by jowl with nasty people never needed to think twice.

We're not talking about 'living cheek by jowl with nasty people'. We're talking about whether young children thought, back in the 60s and 70s (and much earlier) that what they suffered was something that could/should be reported to the police and be would dealt with by them because it was criminal. I think that children have never been more aware of that than they are now. And thank goodness for that.

[Beef Oven!]

We're not talking about 'living cheek by jowl with nasty people'. We're talking about whether young children thought, back in the 60s and 70s (and much earlier) that what they suffered was something that could/should be reported to the police and be would dealt with by them because it was criminal. I think that children have never been more aware of that than they are now. And thank goodness for that.

You simply don't get it. Why would you?

[MrGongGong]

MrGG

Fair enough, though perhaps not everyone is able to take up a new career, or maybe before conviction they really were very good, and therefore feel it best to carry on career wise in the same way.

I'm a bit less forgiving and would adpot a more "tough sh*t" attitude that's the gig mate.
I think the problem with some of these people is that they believe the nonsnese around them that says that they are somehow "unique" and "special". There are plenty other musicians to listen to.
I have worked with people who are no longer allowed to work with children (as a result of dodgy internet activity) whilst I do think they have done the time etc I think that it's fine that they will have to find another way of working and not be able to carry on as Mr King seems to be able to.

[Conchis]

Successful people in the Arts wield vast power. They are able (or are perceived to be able) to realise the dreams of younger artists who are desperate to 'make it'. Many of these younger artists may also idolsise the 'mentor' figure because they admire their work and are unable to make the distinction between that work and its creator. They may persuade themselves that if 'X' wants me to do something, i must do it becuase 'X' is a godlike genius to whom I am devoted. A very toxic mindset but far from uncommon.

[french frank]

You simply don't get it. Why would you?

Well, look at some of these horror stories, especially Fairclough v Whipp, and maybe you'll understand what I'm saying.

http://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/child-sexual-abuse-in-england-and-wales-prosecution-and-prevalence-1918-197

Not only would children not have thought of some acts as crimes, there were cases where the law didn't either. Until 2003 rape could only be committed by a male on a female. And many recent cases don't even amount to rape. It was that Act, I think, that introduced the issue of 'abuse of trust'.

[Beef Oven!]

Well, look at some of these horror stories, especially Fairclough v Whipp, and maybe you'll understand what I'm saying.

http://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/child-sexual-abuse-in-england-and-wales-prosecution-and-prevalence-1918-197

Not only would children not have thought of some acts as crimes, there were cases where the law didn't either. Until 2003 rape could only be committed by a male on a female. And many recent cases don't even amount to rape. It was that Act, I think, that introduced the issue of 'abuse of trust'.

You are really missing the reality (as an academic?).

[ahinton]

You are really missing the reality (as an academic?).

Could you please explain that? Many thanks in advance!