John Eliot Gardiner - the pros and cons...

[vinteuil]

... IWHT, this was exactly the kind of approach which should be approved - direct and rational put in the form of a request rather than a demand.

?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=iwht

[Sir Velo]

So you don’t give a damn about how the members of the orchestra may have suffered* as long as what you hear makes you feel good? All that matters to you is the music you hear?

Following this line of argument, exactly how much music are any of us actually going to listen to? If we rule out musicians who behave badly we should surely extend the same line of argument to the composers themselves. Ok, Papa Haydn seems like a nice chap and Liszt always had the back of his colleagues (even those who held his music in contempt). VW and Ravel volunteered to fight for their countries in WWI, but other than that composers are generally a frightful bunch of egoists, adulterers, sociopaths, scroungers etc aren't they?

[teamsaint]

Following this line of argument, exactly how much music are any of us actually going to listen to? If we rule out musicians who behave badly we should surely extend the same line of argument to the composers themselves. Ok, Papa Haydn seems like a nice chap and Liszt always had the back of his colleagues (even those who held his music in contempt). VW and Ravel volunteered to fight for their countries in WWI, but other than that composers are generally a frightful bunch of egoists, adulterers, sociopaths, scroungers etc aren't they?

But the difference with a conductor is that (if we assume a particular power relationship) they ought to have a duty of care , which probably won't apply in the same way to composers.

[LHC]

But the difference with a conductor is that (if we assume a particular power relationship) they ought to have a duty of care , which probably won't apply in the same way to composers.

I suspect the duty of care actually rests with the orchestra members' employer rather than the conductor. If a conductor is a bully and a tyrant, the orchestra board or MD has a duty of care to protect the players from the conductor's behaviour, either by moderating their behaviour there and then, or by not re-engaging them.

[Richard Barrett]

composers are generally a frightful bunch of egoists, adulterers, sociopaths, scroungers etc aren't they?

and proud of it

[ahinton]

composers are generally a frightful bunch of egoists, adulterers, sociopaths, scroungers etc aren't they?

When is a rhetorical question more rhetorical than interrogative? (don't bother to try to answer that).

But let's take your question apart for what it's worth.

"Frightful"? Full of fright for whom?

"Bunch". What prompts you to try to "bunch" all composers together? They're not red roses or bananas, you know!

As to the rest - "egoists, adulterers, sociopaths, scroungers" (we'll overlook the "etc") - I'm obliquely reminded of my erstwhile teacher (albeit for but a handful of lessons during Humphrey Searle's absence due to illness) Thea Musgrave who said that she is a woman and a composer but never at the same time; being an "ego(t)ist", an "adulterer", a "sociopath" and a "scrounger" simultaneously would surely require a leap of faith as well as a remarkable talent, wouldn't you say?...

Anyway, being one of them dreadful composer types meself, perhaps I'll give each of these persuasions a go and report back on my success or lack thereof...

Sorry to have taken your "question" so seriously!

[ahinton]

and proud of it

I'll pop by for some lessons in these attributes if you'd be so kind, if only to ensure that I'm not letting the side down with shortcomings in any of them...

That said, it's all very well for full time composers but how do those who choose (or have) to divide their time between composition and other professional activities - conducting, performing, teaching, &c. - manage to keep pace with their ego(t)ism, adulterousness, sociopathic conduct and scrounging? It must present quite a challenge; it's no wonder that so many composers die young...

[doversoul1]

Following this line of argument, exactly how much music are any of us actually going to listen to? If we rule out musicians who behave badly we should surely extend the same line of argument to the composers themselves. Ok, Papa Haydn seems like a nice chap and Liszt always had the back of his colleagues (even those who held his music in contempt). VW and Ravel volunteered to fight for their countries in WWI, but other than that composers are generally a frightful bunch of egoists, adulterers, sociopaths, scroungers etc aren't they?

The issue here is nothing to do with anybody’s private life; be they composers, writers or conductors. The question is the behaviour of people who take advantage of (even unintentionally) their professional positions of control and inflict pains on the people who are under their control, and who usually have (almost) no choice but to stay.

The real question here is not whether we should listen to the music, in this case conducted by JEG, which I think is entirely up to individual listeners, but how much/far the society should allow these behaviours as artistic necessity, Or whether the line can be drawn.

[Richard Barrett]

how much/far the society should allow these behaviour as artistic necessity

Well, quite simply, it isn't anything to do with artistic necessity. But I'm not sure about whether society "should allow" this or that attitude. Society should be such as not to encourage hectoring/intimidating behaviour either between musicians or between anyone else.

[Sir Velo]

But the difference with a conductor is that (if we assume a particular power relationship) they ought to have a duty of care , which probably won't apply in the same way to composers.

Presumably the same line of argument can be applied to Southampton FC and other football clubs over the recent abuse scandals? I don't see many football fans boycotting their teams following these revelations, or is that a totally different situation?

[Sir Velo]

The issue here is nothing to do with anybody’s private life; be they composers, writers or conductors. The question is the behaviour of people who take advantage of (even unintentionally) their professional positions of control and inflict pains on the people who are under their control, and who usually have (almost) no choice but to stay.

The real question here is not whether we should listen to the music, in this case conducted by JEG, which I think is entirely up to individual listeners, but how much/far the society should allow these behaviours as artistic necessity, Or whether the line can be drawn.

Ah but where do you draw the line at what is private and what is public behaviour? Is Gesualdo murdering his wife and her lover, just a little marital scuffle which was no one else's business? Wagner's adultery and anti Semitism not relevant? Schoenberg regularly beat his children - is that OK because he didn't do that in front of a packed concert house?

You see, it's not so easy to make these distinctions is it? Anyway, we are all trying and condemning JEG on pretty flimsy evidence don't you think? He may or may not have physically assaulted a colleague who may or may not have been equally culpable - all basically hearsay and inadmissible evidence in most courts.

[teamsaint]

Presumably the same line of argument can be applied to Southampton FC and other football clubs over the recent abuse scandals? I don't see many football fans boycotting their teams following these revelations, or is that a totally different situation?

Of course those in positions of power should be answerable, whether they are CEOs, or youth team coaches.

If you are specifically directing the discussion towards child abuse,then we have to await the outcome of any trials. If football clubs are shown to have failed in their duty of care, the clamour for change ( and punishment) will, I am sure, be very great, and from the fans as well as those normally unconnected with specific clubs. Fans will want their own clubs to be squeaky clean. I certainly do.

If your suggestion is that I am applying a double standard to JEG, that is wrong. I haven't said anything negative about him, at all. I am the only person on this thread to have claimed to have had any direct experience of working with him, although there must be others on here who have.
As regards Robert King, all I have complained of is the double standard that seems to be applied to him, compared to others convicted of similar offences.

[teamsaint]

Ah but where do you draw the line at what is private and what is public behaviour? Is Gesualdo murdering his wife and her lover, just a little marital scuffle which was no one else's business? Wagner's adultery and anti Semitism not relevant? Schoenberg regularly beat his children - is that OK because he didn't do that in front of a packed concert house?

You see, it's not so easy to make these distinctions is it? Anyway, we are all trying and condemning JEG on pretty flimsy evidence don't you think? He may or may not have physically assaulted a colleague who may or may not have been equally culpable - all basically hearsay and inadmissible evidence in most courts.

AFAICS, almost everybody on here is prepared to give JEG the benefit of doubt. Everybody agrees that all we have is hearsay, and old hearsay at that. His recordings and performances get fair treatment on musical grounds, and a pretty thorough hearing from board members.

The discussion about behaviour been mostly around principles, not actual events. The hearsay stuff around JEG has just been the catalyst for discussion.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Schoenberg regularly beat his children - is that OK because he didn't do that in front of a packed concert house?

Where did you read this, SirV? (I'd heard that Stravinsky was a strict disciplinarian, but I've not seen accounts from Schoenberg's children to suggest this was the case with Arnie, too.)

[visualnickmos]

I'm starting to lose the will to live, reading this thread....

think I'll move on to some music, instead!