James Levine (1943-2021)

[Katzelmacher]

I didn't realise he was so wide ranging in his "tastes" outside music. Perhaps better to not go any further with such discussion, but I don't think getting married really exonerates him.

I wasn’t suggesting it did!

[Ein Heldenleben]

I’ve read Newman and I’ve read Cosima Wagner’s Diaries, in which many of RW’s bon mots are recorded. The Wagners’ behaviour ranged from the petty (Cosima refusing the doctor who was sent to attend on Richard because the doctor happened to be ‘an Israelite’) to the deeply disturbing (Wagner’s offhand remark that the best way to deal with the Jews would be to ‘stick them on a bonfire’). Yet Wagner did welcome the likes of Levi and Joukowsky into Haus Wahnfried the sacred temple of Wagnerism and Levi was indeed one of the pallbearers at Wagner’s funeral. It may be invidious to talk of ‘scales of anti-Semitism’ in subjects like this but it’s hard to imagine people like Houston Stuart Chamberlain (who married into the Wagner family) or Bernhard Forster (Nietzsche’s brother-in-law) doing things like that.


Wagner’s deranged antipathy toward Meyerbeer is fascinating. No-one has ever quite got to the bottom of it, but it seems the relationship was important in the formulation of Wagner’s anti-Semitism. As a stony broke newcomer to Paris, Wagner sought Meyerbeer out and Meyerbeer was happy to give him some money and introduce him to some important people. Maybe Wagner didn’t like being beholden to someone whom he didn’t admire/in fact rather despised as an artist? Some have asserted that Wagner’s resented Meyerbeer because ‘he didn’t do more for me.’ A more likely explanation is that Meyerbeer was a huge success in Paris, the epicentre Of opera, when Wagner was trying (and, largely, failing) to make his way there. This could also explain his lifelong antipathy to the French and his exuberantly obnoxious response to the siege of Paris.

Yes it is fascinating - not only did Meyerbeer help him , Wagner learnt a lot from him and then treated him abysmally - in print. One thing that amazes me is , in the age we think of destructive anonymous trolling , how easy it was to publish anonymous denunciations then and get away with it.
Also on the charge sheet his exultant warmongering around the Franco- Prussian war. Cosima was even more anti-Semitic than RW. I think if people were useful to him (particularly in the money lending department) they could expect reasonable treatment whatever their origin - right up to the point he had no further use for them. On the other hand the Newman bio was finished during WW 2 and Newman acknowledges that might colour his judgement - particularly on Wagner’s brand of German Nationalism which is difficult perhaps to disentangle from his anti-Semitism. Would Wagner have been a Nazi? Probably a silly question but he was so perverse I can see him having nothing to do with them.

[Richard Barrett]

How difficult it is to reconcile the beauty of one creation and the ugliness of Wagner’s behaviour . It’s almost a microcosm of the world - the ugliness of prejudice and war and the beauty of art. I can’t reconcile them but I don’t think “burning” is the answer...

No indeed, but probably there's a difference here between Wagner and Levine. For me Wagner is one of the irreplaceable individuals in the evolution of music, whose work enriches musical culture to a far greater extent than his bigotry diminishes it, and whose contradictions are maybe an overdeveloped and distorted version of contradictions we all have within ourselves (and which as you say society also has). If on the other hand everything James Levine did in his life were to be erased, the balance would probably look quite different. It isn't that I wouldn't listen to his recordings as a matter of principle, but that the knowledge I have of him would intrude so much on the experience that I think to myself why bother.

[Ein Heldenleben]

No indeed, but probably there's a difference here between Wagner and Levine. For me Wagner is one of the irreplaceable individuals in the evolution of music, whose work enriches musical culture to a far greater extent than his bigotry diminishes it, and whose contradictions are maybe an overdeveloped and distorted version of contradictions we all have within ourselves (and which as you say society also has). If on the other hand everything James Levine did in his life were to be erased, the balance would probably look quite different. It isn't that I wouldn't listen to his recordings as a matter of principle, but that the knowledge I have of him would intrude so much on the experience that I think to myself why bother.

Very well put - yes we all have good and bad within us. I wonder why Levine was so highly rated ? I know the words Norman Lebrecht are anathema to some on this forum but in the Maestro Myth I think he did outline well how the power of agents , PR , music companies , sympathetic journalists conspire to inflate reputations and make people unassailable- and that is so dangerous . Bad for their long suffering fellow musicians and the most vulnerable in the profession - those at the start of a very competitive career. . Levine was a good conductor , efficient , competent but not as good as many less apparently successful names yet he wielded huge power for decades in one of the great Opera Houses. I wonder what the Met are doing to ensure it doesn’t happen again?

[Katzelmacher]

Very well put - yes we all have good and bad within us. I wonder why Levine was so highly rated ? I know the words Norman Lebrecht are anathema to some on this forum but in the Maestro Myth I think he did outline well how the power of agents , PR , music companies , sympathetic journalists conspire to inflate reputations and make people unassailable- and that is so dangerous . Bad for their long suffering fellow musicians and the most vulnerable in the profession - those at the start of a very competitive career. . Levine was a good conductor , efficient , competent but not as good as many less apparently successful names yet he wielded huge power for decades in one of the great Opera Houses. I wonder what the Met are doing to ensure it doesn’t happen again?

If you’re prepared to overlook its general garishness and the contentious personality of its author, The Maestro Myth contained a credible thesis about how power is wielded in the small but highly competitive (and rancorous) world of classical music. Levine became an important client of the all-powerful Columbia Artists’ Management International, whose head honcho Peter Gelb is now the administrator in charge of the Met. It’s obvious that Gelb knew about Levine’s activities for a long time but did absolutely nothing to curtail them.

The Met’s policy in recent years has been to pretend that its disasters haven’t happened - as if by refusing to confront them, they will somehow disappear. They did this with Levine (I’m surprised they even mentioned his death on their site)and their also doing it over the scandalous matter of their failure to pay their orchestra in lockdown.

[Katzelmacher]

Three reptiles stage a love-in:

https://youtu.be/QmnagKbhXGY

[ahinton]

No indeed, but probably there's a difference here between Wagner and Levine. For me Wagner is one of the irreplaceable individuals in the evolution of music, whose work enriches musical culture to a far greater extent than his bigotry diminishes it, and whose contradictions are maybe an overdeveloped and distorted version of contradictions we all have within ourselves (and which as you say society also has). If on the other hand everything James Levine did in his life were to be erased, the balance would probably look quite different. It isn't that I wouldn't listen to his recordings as a matter of principle, but that the knowledge I have of him would intrude so much on the experience that I think to myself why bother.

Very well said - a most pragmatic, balanced and fair-minded response.

[Dave2002]

Very well said - a most pragmatic, balanced and fair-minded response.

I think it's very hard - probably impossible - to excuse one more than the other. Some might argue - rightly or wrongly - that Wagner was responsible - allbeit indirectly - for some of the worst atrocities ever commited on this earth, and would therefore not have the slightest interest in whether he changed the face of music.

Wagner could be excused perhaps on the same sort of grounds that it might be unreasonable to blame the flapping of a butterfly's wings somewhere in the world with catastrophes later on in very distant parts, but there is little doubt that in some quarters Wagner's influence is held to have been very significant in non musical arenas, even for events which occurred 50 years after his death. Some might say they wish that Wagner had never lived, whether he produced magnificent music and had a substantial influence on the musical world, or not.

I think trying to cherry pick the things which are worthwhile in each man's life, and offset those - again with careful cherry picking - and comparing different monstrous character traits, and declaring one to be "less bad" or "better" than the other is just not going to work.

[cloughie]

Very well said - a most pragmatic, balanced and fair-minded response.

No it is not! Just because he likes Wagner’s music but not bothered either way about Levine’s music making? Both men were flawed but RB’s arguments are equally flawed. Yes it’s pragmatic but not balanced nor fair-minded in a month of Sundays!

[Dave2002]

No it is not! Just because he likes Wagner’s music but not bothered either way about Levine’s music making? Both men were flawed but RB’s arguments are equally flawed. Yes it’s pragmatic but not balanced nor fair-minded in a month of Sundays!

Yes!

I think we might have to accept that there are things we like, and things we approve of and things we don’t like and don’t approve of. Then the question arises of whether it’s really possible to value someone or something which has elements of both. If we insist that we can’t, and we also have some sort of moral duty to change our own behaviour then maybe we would not listen to music or look at paintings or other works of art by people who are or were flawed. But maybe we don’t have to do that, and can separate these in onr minds. We still don’t have to condone behaviour, or continue to support the activities of such flawed people when we do become aware, though.

[richardfinegold]

The great (greatest?) German lyric poet, Heinrich Heine, a Jew, of course, had a love-hate relationship with his own country and famously wrote from his Paris exile:
Denk ich an Deutschland in der Nacht,
Dann bin ich um den Schlaf gebracht (If I think of Germany during the night I can't sleep any more)



I sometimes think of Bernard Levin commenting that if he wasn't Jewish he would probably be an anti-Semite.

Can you elaborate on this?

[Richard Barrett]

No it is not! Just because he likes Wagner’s music but not bothered either way about Levine’s music making? Both men were flawed but RB’s arguments are equally flawed. Yes it’s pragmatic but not balanced nor fair-minded in a month of Sundays!

It really has nothing to do with what I "like"; it seems trivial to point out that neither you nor I are able to influence the situation with regard to either of these men, that regardless of my or anyone else's opinions Wagner's artistic output is generally regarded as important (if that term means anything) in a way that Levine's never could be, and, most importantly, that Levine's predatory and abusive behaviour has clearly tainted many lives whereas Wagner's actual behaviour probably can't be said to have done so, regardless of his poisonous opinions, unless one holds Wagner responsible for Nazi crimes committed half a century after his death in a world he wouldn't have recognised, which indeed some do.

[cloughie]

It really has nothing to do with what I "like"; it seems trivial to point out that neither you nor I are able to influence the situation with regard to either of these men, that regardless of my or anyone else's opinions Wagner's artistic output is generally regarded as important (if that term means anything) in a way that Levine's never could be, and, most importantly, that Levine's predatory and abusive behaviour has clearly tainted many lives whereas Wagner's actual behaviour probably can't be said to have done so, regardless of his poisonous opinions, unless one holds Wagner responsible for Nazi crimes committed half a century after his death in a world he wouldn't have recognised, which indeed some do.

One was a composer the other a conductor and pianist so you are not comparing like with like - Wagner’s music was good, Levine’s musical performances were good. Both were rather imperfect as members of the human race and do not condone what either have done outside music but you seem to partially exonerate Wagner’s behaviour because of his great music. So yes your judgement appears to me very much influenced by the fact that you like Wagner’s music but Levine is not near the top of your list as a conductor.

[ahinton]

No it is not! Just because he likes Wagner’s music but not bothered either way about Levine’s music making? Both men were flawed but RB’s arguments are equally flawed. Yes it’s pragmatic but not balanced nor fair-minded in a month of Sundays!

I beg to disagree. The issue is neither RB's peronsal view of Wagner's music nor whether or to what extent he is "bothered either way" about Levine's music making; it is the fact that the long-term idolisation of Levine has enabled his reprehensible extra-musical conduct to continue largely unchallenged for years.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I beg to disagree. The issue is neither RB's peronsal view of Wagner's music nor whether or to what extent he is "bothered either way" about Levine's music making; it is the fact that the long-term idolisation of Levine has enabled his reprehensible extra-musical conduct to continue largely unchallenged for years.

To be honest you could say exactly the same about Richard Wagner in Bayreuth at least for the first 80 years - surrounded by sycophants and post-mortem apologists. The extraordinary thing about Wagner is that because of his genius and magnetic power even people vastly more talented than Levine (e.g. Hans Von Bulow ) were prepared to tolerate working with him. The story of Levine , as others have said , is how a merely competent conductor can acquire such power and abuse it.
It could be argued that Wagner set the trend for the all powerful music maestro to whom all must defer. The problem with that is that surprisingly he was reasonably well behaved as a director and conductor and indeed often defended the musicians interests . I don’t think he would have suspended their pay during a pandemic for example . Had he done so nothing would ever have been performed as there were plenty more diseases then!