Should classical music be a more forgiving world than other forms of culture ?

[ahinton]

ahinton, I think you misunderstand. The objective is not that the one fewer among any tally will be me. It will be the individual who decided on the programme's content, McGregor or not.

OK, fine but, in the long run, it would hardly matter which one person it was.

This is not a question of seeking to bar anyone from "all professional activity". It is to ensure that the BBC is decent, responsible and accountable to those who decide on its funding and those who fund it. No doubt it considers that it can get away with expressing its chagrin at being lambasted on Savile by being controversial in obscure places. Perhaps a tribute to Myra Hindley on The Essay in Spring? Fortunately, those who have noted the editorial decisions made this morning have brought the matter to the attention of a wider audience. We will now take steps accordingly.

But you are referring here only to BBC (presumably because of the accolade given to Mr King's work by Mr McGregor on R3's CD Review), but why otherwise single out BBC for such accusation? Supposing other non-BBC review sources praised the CD to the highest heavens and accordingly upped it sales while BBC deliberately ignored it; where would that leave BBC's credibility? - or would you move to try to bar any journal from reviewing the product on the same grounds as you'd have preferred it not to have been featured on CD Review?

You can flim-flam all you like about whether we should now accept court decisions as accurate (the law is the law) or whether an individual was officially employed by the BBC when he was producing prime time television (licence payers still paid for him) or the fact that six decades are different from 15 years (absolutely irrelevant in terms of impacts) or that in your world being anti-semitic or anti-Soviet might be the equivalent to King's convictions (it isn't although the former is highly objectionable). I have no time for apologists in the matter. I am just pleased that the programme has been brought to our attention. Do enjoy it for as long as it continues. Hopefully, that won't be long. A once good enough programme will have to end because of producers' crass stupidity.

Oh, so now you'd like to encourage and then witness the demise of CD Review? Well, you've made your position clear, at least, but I still wonder whether you'd likewise wish to advocate the downfall of any other journal that reviews this product. The law is indeed the law and, rather than "flim-flamming" about whether or not the sentence handed down to Mr King was appropriate (which I am not doing), I was seeking to ascertain what you thought about that on the grounds that you appear still to regard him as a convict who deserves continuing punishment of some kind, albeit no longer of a custodial nature. The question of whether a convicted criminal (or one who, like Savile, would almost certainly have been convicted had his offences been discovered and reported in order that he'd been charged, tried, convicted and sentenced before his death allowed him to get away with it all scot-free) was or was not on BBC's books was one that I raised purely as a consequence of your reference to BBC and CD Review in your post; however, "we will now take steps accordingly"? Who do you think you are and what "steps" are you either entitled or empowered to take? Unless I misunderstand your idle threat here, I have to say that I've rarely encountered quite such a degree of arrogance on this forum. BBC licence payers pay for all sorts of stuff and many might well resent paying for Radio 3 at all just as others resent paying for all manner of other BBC output; that's hardly a valid argument here. I do not seek to parallel public anti-Semitism or inhuman Soviet Diktat with the crimes committed by Savile, King and others but to point out that, if you're to present a credible argument over this particular issue, then your recognition that "the law is the law" needs to run in tandem with a recognition that "criminals are criminals" and those (unlke Savile) who are charged with and tried, convicted and imprisoned for their crimes are for the most part released from prison eventually on the grounds that the trial judge is as confident as he/she can be at the time of passing sentence that, once the sentence has been completed, the criminal should be allowed to go free just like the rest of us who have committed no breaches of the law.

Do also bear in mind that, as fhg has rightly observed, it is principally for the victims and their families to "forgive" and, unless he was one or belongs to any of those families, Mr McGregor is not able to do this.

[ahinton]

There is an extraordinary contrast between the damning condemnation (98%) of an author who is selling a book that alleges a late composer had syphilis and the 70% to 30% opinion that a living composer convicted of extensive child abuse should on balance be promoted by the BBC on a Saturday morning.

There is indeed - but how can BBC totally ignore something like this when other reviewing organisations - to say nothing of the record company, &c. - will be promoting the recording concerned? BBC has a duty to report news at the very least; it will look utterly daft if it is transparently seen to ignore this altogether and its agenda for doing so will soon be out in the open.

Again, however, what do you think should happen? - that Mr King should just disappear from public view permanently and dissociate himself from all humans who might otherwise become victims?

The argument that the former is unproven and hence vile has no weight at all when something considerably more vile, and proven, is greeted with a shrug of the shoulders. Anyone might think that many contributors consider the idea that someone may have had syphilis to be more potentially damaging to an individual's reputation than a court decision that another had abused children. Delius had syphilis. It hasn't affected his reputation. The way Fenby helped him has a positive message. There is nothing positive in the BBC promoting King other than for a "man" who describes the children as liars.

All of this is all very well, but unless you believe totally that what an artist does as an artist and what he/she does other than as an artist are inextricably linked, it doesn't make for much of a credible argument; whilst crime is not involved in what I'm about to cite, do you not recall Turner who, when asked about his self-portrait as an 18-year-old, said that he did it because he wanted people not to know from it about the artist who painted his pictures (and, let's face it, Turner was a master not only of his art but of of deception in many other ways!)...

[MrGongGong]

once the sentence has been completed, the criminal should be allowed to go free just like the rest of us who have committed no breaches of the law.
.

Of course (as the recent ruling on CRB checks illustrates) this isn't really the case.

Again, however, what do you think should happen? - that Mr King should just disappear from public view permanently and dissociate himself from all humans who might otherwise become victims?

Which IS exactly what an ex colleague of mine has had to do, as talented as Mr King but as a result of something he did is completely unable to work in music in the way he did ever again (which was in law a "lesser" crime than Mr King's). Part of me feels sad about this as the person I knew was a wonderful composer and director BUT a bigger part feels more than a little angry about it. There IS enough music in the world already and we probably wont notice....

What is a bit disturbing is denial and complicity
some (very few) people do bad things , we shouldn't excuse them
as other's have said , forgiveness is not for us to give

[ahinton]

This IS a very difficult area indeed and affects far too many of us personally



I would add that (with reference to Musicking on another thread) "music" doesn't just refer to sonic phenomena
what other things ARE part of the music and in what balance are matters of (interesting IMV) debate.

"Interesting" indeed, but of lasting and universal value only if and when specific and incontrovertible scientific proof of direct connections between an artist's work and his persona may be made for members of the public to perceive and evaluate for themselves.

[Mary Chambers]

There is an extraordinary contrast between the damning condemnation (98%) of an author who is selling a book that alleges a late composer had syphilis and the 70% to 30% opinion that a living composer convicted of extensive child abuse should on balance be promoted by the BBC on a Saturday morning. The argument that the former is unproven and hence vile has no weight at all when something considerably more vile, and proven, is greeted with a shrug of the shoulders.

Speaking for myself, my objection to the Kildea book is that there is apparently no valid evidence for what is claimed. If anyone comes up with any, I'll accept it without worry.

King is a conductor, not a composer, but I'm sure you know that really. If his recording is the best, it should be acknowledged, because it's the job of the programme to say which they think is the best. Nobody has to buy it.

[Lateralthinking1]

ahinton, That's the same old stuff. Your consistent defence of a blurring of the lines between adulthood and childhood, and accompanying matters of consent, has been presented time and again in different wriggling forms. You know full well that the difference in the case of King is that the BBC is funded by the general public. We can say that we object strongly to the way our money is being used. The BBC knows that the victims and their families could have had King at the breakfast table this morning courtesy of the BBC, accompanied by McGregor's air headed lauding. That is an abomination and the Corporation is encouraging its own demise. Those of us who value the institution for what it is supposed to be can only be sickened by the amoral bimbos who are now in charge of it. They won't lose out. Once they have destroyed it, they will just move on to even higher salaries at Sky.

[Barbirollians]

I find the use of the word "forgiving" interesting here: as far as Robert King is concerned, only those boys (and thier families and friends) against whom he offended have any right to "forgive" him.

And, moving aside from this individual, in order to deserve forgiveness, there has to be a show of genuine remorse and determination not to re-offend. I do not know whether RK has done this (his denial of the charges at his trial, and his calling his accusers "liars" doesn't bode well), but Jonathan King and Paul Gadd certainly have not done so, and continue to deny their offenses: in these circumstances, it would certainly be repellent for the BBC to give them any sort of remunerated publicity. It would be the same, I hope, for anyone with such a conviction who also denied their guilt.

But, if there were a case where an offender did acknowledge his guilt to himself and to others, who showed and felt genuine remorse for and who actively sought to atone for his offence, then never mind "Classical music" - there needs, I believe, to be a feeling throughout society that we should do what we can (which, heaven only knows, may not be much), not only to help prevent a re-offense, but also to help everyone [come to terms] with his actions.

EDIT: "Come to terms" is pathetic - I wanted to avoid the New-Agey glib expression "move on". I don't think "come to terms" is much better, but in such cases, it's almost impossible to avoid glibness. Apologies.

A very fair point FHGL .I have no idea whether Mr King has since admitted the offences and sought help in preventing reoffending - if he had, but there seems no evidence of it , I would take a more benevolent view I am sure .

In short , if he has not , apart from the musicial milieu I see very little difference between Mr King and Paul Gadd .

As I said I find the idea that a new CD by Mr Gadd regardless of its musical merits , would be reviewed let alone described as a must buy on Radio 1 or 2 as inconceivable.

[MrGongGong]

King is a conductor, not a composer, but I'm sure you know that really. If his recording is the best, it should be acknowledged, because it's the job of the programme to say which they think is the best. Nobody has to buy it.

With (real) respect Mary, I think that is a little naive
i'm not sure what the best action is (and have had to grapple with this personally in the past) but
whether one recording is "better" than another is not an objective stance
and there are enough recordings in the world already , i'm sure if the KC one never existed we wouldn't have noticed

[ahinton]

Of course (as the recent ruling on CRB checks illustrates) this isn't really the case.

Indeed - but "the law is the law" nevertheless and the overbearingly disproportionate attention given to the carrying out of CRB checks (especially those that are unnecessarily duplicated and those that purport to make insufficient distinction between convicted serial rapists and those who've been done for speeding once three decades ago, at the taxpayers' expense) is as apposite an illustration as any of the excuses to which a few people of overly retributory persuasion feel justified in having recourse when seeking noisily and threateningly to accuse a R3 producer and/or presenter of promoting musical work that happens to have been done by a convicted sex offender who has completed the sentence handed down to him.

[ahinton]

Speaking for myself, my objection to the Kildea book is that there is apparently no valid evidence for what is claimed. If anyone comes up with any, I'll accept it without worry.

Likewise - although I'm not holding my breath...

King is a conductor, not a composer, but I'm sure you know that really. If his recording is the best, it should be acknowledged, because it's the job of the programme to say which they think is the best. Nobody has to buy it.

I'm sure that Lat does indeed know that and, as you rightly observe, no one has to buy anything that they prefer not to for any reason but, having asked Lat and Mr Pee what they think Mr King should do following completion of his sentence and whether they believe that this should include undertaking no further artistic work, keeping out of the public eye and the rest, answer is there none; I've also observed that BBC, as a news distribution organ, can hardly ignore something like this, especially if it happens to get widely lauded elsewhere.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Are there double standards here, in this Britten centenary year?

[Petrushka]

As I mentioned above, I became aware of this disc from the laudatory article e-mailed to me by Presto Classical. What then if, as ahinton points out, the CD is praised to the skies by Gramophone, BBC MM, the Daily Telegraph, Guardian, Independent and Sunday Times? Presumably, the musicians were happy to make this disc?

[MrGongGong]

Presumably, the musicians were happy to make this disc?

It's easy to have high principles when one doesn't have the somewhat precarious life of a freelance musician.
Like many others I have had to struggle with conscience at times and have refused work for what I thought were sound ethical reasons, but I wouldn't condemn those who maybe chose otherwise.

[Lateralthinking1]

So I am required by law to pay for McGregor to promote the record of a convicted child offender and his victims are to be required by the law to pay for it too? No. Absolutely no. Groups of freaks in the establishment will no doubt get together in the privacy of their own sewers to produce for the similar minded. I am not going to be made to fund it without getting the tabloids involved.

[ahinton]

ahinton, That's the same old stuff. Your consistent defence of a blurring of the lines between adulthood and childhood, and accompanying matters of consent, has been presented time and again in different wriggling forms. You know full well that the difference in the case of King is that the BBC is funded by the general public.

"The same as" what other "old stuff"? I have not defended - or indeed even referred to - either "a blurring of the lines between adulthood and childhood" or "accompanying matters of consent" and the only obvious "wriggling" here is being done by you in your evident refusal to answer my questions as to whether you believe that Mr King should no longer function as any kind of professional musician or put himself in the public eye and whether BBC can realistically ignore on a programme such as CD Review a product that might be widely lauded elsewhere. Yes, BBC is indeed "funded by the general public" but the only difference between its funding and that of other broadcasters is that it's done via a licence fee and, for that matter, anyone may in any case listen with impunity to R3, including CD Review, for free provided that they do not have a television set in their premises; are you really trying to persuade yourself and the rest of us that, when BBC is funded by the public (like all the other broadcasting organisations) other than via a licence fee, the question of whether this CD should have been featured on a programme such as CD Review will somehow be different to what it is now?

We can say that we object strongly to the way our money is being used.

Yes, "we" can indeed but, as has already been seen, "we" do not all speak with one voice about this or anything else.

The BBC knows that the victims and their families could have had King at the breakfast table this morning courtesy of the BBC, accompanied by McGregor's air headed lauding.

Indeed, but where do you place the "blame" for this? - on BBC for featuring the recording? or on Mr King and all others involved in producing and publicly releasing it? and, if both, thento what extent in each case?

That is an abomination and the Corporation is encouraging its own demise.

Nonsense! In the relatively unlikely event that any of "the victims and their families" did indeed have "King at the breakfast table this morning courtesy of the BBC", the could - if so they chose - switch off and, in any case, it is surely only fair to them to give them credit for the certainty that, if offended by anything, it would not be the quality of product being reviewed or the specific content of the review (unless they happened to disagree with the review purely on grounds of merit). R3 attracts, as we all know, only a very small fraction of BBC's total listenership and viewership, so if a short item on this morning's CD Review might risk BBC "encouraging its own demise", then BBC will not be around by the end of next week following other reported events heard and seen on BBC by a far larger proportion of the British public.

Those of us who value the institution for what it is supposed to be can only be sickened by the amoral bimbos who are now in charge of it.

Who exactly are you now accusing here? Your ire had been directed at Mr McGregor and CD Review's producer; do you consider them to be responsible for all that you dislike about the ways in which BBC as a whole is run and is "amoral bimbos" your description of Mr McGregor?

Any chance of you answering those questions? It would be greatly appreciated and hopefully contribute towards a better understanding of your position even if I may not agree with it.