James Levine Dead- Page 2

[MikeInTheDistrict]

Posted: 3/20/21 at 9:06pm

whatever2 said: "> I listen to Karajan's La Boheme with Pavarotti and Freni

but, Mike, *really* are you listening for Karajan, or for Pavarotti and Freni?

I am a long-time lurker on parterre.com, where a lot of super-smart opera fans post regularly. the ones whose opinions i respect the most pretty much don't think Levine was all that and a bag of chips. i go to a lot of operas (well, did go in the Beforetimes, and can't wait til it's safe to go again), but i'm not discerning enough to know how much was Levine and how much was the fact that the Met employs an astounding company of instrumentalists. at the end of the day, i strongly suspect Levine was not as great as his behavior was awful."

You are, of course, correct. I'm listening for Pavarotti and Freni. Karajan just happened to luck out to have two of the greatest singers of the 20th Century on his recording. In fact, I find Karajan's conducting usually overwrought and lacking Italianate style. Same for his very unidiomatic Carmen, which benefits from having the ravishing Leontyne Price and Franco Corelli as leads.

I think that appraisal of Levine from Parterre is pretty accurate. IMO, he had very few original ideas as a conductor. Granted. I never heard him conduct a bad performance, but neither were they ever transcendent, or particularly idiomatic. You're right about the instrumentalists. There were tremendously talented musicians in that pit. They sounded good under pretty much any conductor that took up the baton. Levine's greatest asset was that he played servant to his singers, allowing them to get away with interpretive indulgences that other conductors would reign in. Speaking of singers, like Karajan, Levine was the beneficiary of generations of unsurpassed talent. He was lucky enough to preside over the Met pit during the careers of singers the likes of which we may never see again. No doubt, the contribution of many musicians fell in his favor. Updated On: 3/20/21 at 09:06 PM

[MikeInTheDistrict]

Posted: 3/20/21 at 9:14pm

HogansHero said: "MikeInTheDistrict said: "I listen to Karajan's La Boheme with Pavarotti and Freni while still condemning the fact that he was a fervent Nazi."

Obviously only a sidebar here, but my recollection is that he was characterized post-war as (the german word for) a tag-along, someone who joined the Nazi party for career-related reasons, but without fervor. Still worthy of disdain, but unless I am mistaken, had there been evidence that he was "a fervent Nazi" he would not have been permitted to resume his stature."

The sincerity and intensity of Karajan's affinity for the National Socialist Party has been the subject of much debate over the years. Part of the reason for this is that he never outright disavowed his allegiance at any point in his career, and even during his lifetime, there were whispers among musicians who worked with him. Your version may be closer to the truth, but we'll never really know. Karajan's legacy is also less defensible, IMO, in contrast to Wilhelm Furtwängler, who actively spoke out against Hitler and the Nazi Party, enlisting Jewish and anti-fascist artists to perform, all while staying in Germany.

[joevitus]

Posted: 3/21/21 at 1:11am

MikeInTheDistrict said: "You can listen to Levine, even appreciate him, without hand-waving or minimizing his monstrosity. I listen to Karajan's La Boheme with Pavarotti and Freni while still condemning the fact that he was a fervent Nazi."

It's a bit of an exaggeration to say Karajan was a "fervent Nazi." The Twisted Muse is a good book on Nazi-sympathizers in the world of opera.

Levine had sex with teenaged boys (though in most instances, they were of age of consent in the states where they lived). It's a horrible thing for him to have done, especially as he seems to have used his power and position in the world of classical music to get these boys to do something they did not want to do, but terms like "his monstrosity" makes it sound like he's a gay Humbert Humbert. Someone above called him a pedophile, though pedophiles go after pre-pubescent children. 

I guess this will count for you as "hand-waving  or minimizing," but I'm totally okay, and indeed satisfied, with his having lost his position and his reputation as a result of his actions. He deserved it. And I wish those boys, now men, a better future than their past. I hope they have, or can, heal. But I'm also okay with noting what his crimes actually were, rather than stringing together vague hyperbole, and I'm okay with noting that he was an amazing conductor. 

Updated On: 3/21/21 at 01:11 AM

[joevitus]

Posted: 3/21/21 at 1:27am

You are, of course, correct. I'm listening for Pavarotti and Freni. Karajan just happened to luck out to have two of the greatest singers of the 20th Century on his recording."

As if they weren't extremely grateful to be working with a man often revered as the greatest conductor of his generation, or as if he "just happened" to be part of the recording. It's like you don't understand how the personnel for opera recordings are assembled or what power over choice of vocalists, or ability to accept or reject assignments, conductors of that stature have.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 3/21/21 at 1:57am

@Mike my reaction was solely to the "fervent" part. I am fine characterizing him as "worthy of disdain" even based on the substance of the adjudication which certainly did not absolve him.

[MikeInTheDistrict]

Posted: 3/21/21 at 10:31am

joevitus said: ""Levine had sex with teenaged boys (though in most instances, they were of age of consent in thestates where they lived). It's a horrible thing for him to have done, especially as he seems to have used his power and position in the world of classical music to get these boys to do something they did not want to do,but terms like "his monstrosity" makes it sound like he's agay Humbert Humbert. "


Rape. It was rape. The term we use for what you're describing here is not "having sex" with someone who "did not want to do" that. It is rape. James Levine was a rapist. WTF relevance does "age of consent" bear when one of the parties was groomed, manipulated, and coerced into giving said "consent" and there was such a huge power differential at play? The boys he raped were barely out of childhood, physically and certainly psychologically. What Levine did was no different from what Harvey Weinstein did, and the latter has received far stronger words than "monstrosity."

I am a mental health professional. I provide therapy to people who are victims of trauma -- not just sexual trauma, but all kinds. Levine's behavior was abusive beyond just his sexual offenses, and would be traumatic to grown adults, let alone a young person who hasn't even finished puberty yet. I see firsthand how physical, emotional, and sexual abuse devastates people. I don't think you fully comprehend the egregious nature of the behavior you are describing here. Updated On: 3/21/21 at 10:31 AM

[MikeInTheDistrict]

Posted: 3/21/21 at 10:34am

HogansHero said: "@Mike my reaction was solely to the "fervent" part. I am fine characterizing him as "worthy of disdain" even based on the substance of the adjudication which certainly did not absolve him.


"

Gotcha.

[George in DC]

Posted: 3/21/21 at 12:15pm

whatever2 said: "> I listen to Karajan's La Boheme with Pavarotti and Freni

but, Mike, *really* are you listening for Karajan, or for Pavarotti and Freni?

I am a long-time lurker on parterre.com, where a lot of super-smart opera fans post regularly. the ones whose opinions i respect the most pretty much don't think Levine was all that and a bag of chips. i go to a lot of operas (well, did go in the Beforetimes, and can't wait til it's safe to go again), but i'm not discerning enough to know how much was Levine and how much was the fact that the Met employs an astounding company of instrumentalists. at the end of the day, i strongly suspect Levine was not as great as his behavior was awful."

First, I'm not a big Levine fan but I have to give him credit for what he achieved. You talk about the Met orchestra being "an astounding company of instrumentalists" , well, this was not always the case. I first started to go to the Met in the  70s's  right at the start of Mr Levines tenure (I was in my  teens). The Met Orchestra was not the world class orchestra it is now. You could count on your hands the number of major mistakes and wrong notes they made in each act. It certainly wasn't comparable to most "Symphonic Orchestras". James Levine is the one who changed that. He got rid of the problem players and he groomed the orchestra to be the first rate  ensemble they became.

 

Updated On: 3/21/21 at 12:15 PM

[DooWahDiddy]

Posted: 3/21/21 at 6:00pm

George in DC said: "whatever2 said: "> He got rid of the problem players and he groomed the orchestra to be the first rate ensemble they became.

"

I don't think "groomed" is the word you want to use here...

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 3/21/21 at 7:07pm

Thank you, Mike. I’m a victim of sexual abuse as an adolescent, and i cannot begin to express what it feels like to see people look past, excuse, downplay, and let pass these actions. It is re-traumatizing all over again. Every time one of these conversations happens. Every time. MikeInTheDistrict said: "joevitus said: ""Levine had sex with teenaged boys (though in most instances, they were of age of consent in thestates where they lived). It's a horrible thing for him to have done, especially as he seems to have used his power and position in the world of classical music to get these boys to do something they did not want to do,but terms like "his monstrosity" makes it sound like he's agay Humbert Humbert. "


Rape. It was rape. The term we use for what you're describing here is not "having sex" with someone who "did not want to do" that. It is rape. James Levine was a rapist. WTF relevance does "age of consent" bear when one of the parties was groomed, manipulated, and coerced into giving said "consent" and there was such a huge power differential at play? The boys he raped were barely out of childhood, physically and certainly psychologically. What Levine did was no different from what Harvey Weinstein did, and the latter has received far stronger words than "monstrosity."

I am a mental health professional. I provide therapy to people who are victims of trauma -- not just sexual trauma, but all kinds. Levine's behavior was abusive beyond just his sexual offenses, and would be traumatic to grown adults, let alone a young person who hasn't even finished puberty yet. I see firsthand how physical, emotional, and sexual abuse devastates people. I don't think you fully comprehend the egregious nature of the behavior you are describing here. "

 

[Dollypop]

Posted: 3/21/21 at 8:13pm

I've had friends at the Metropolitan Opera, both on stage and in the pit. The stories they told me about Levine were odious. He was a disgusting man but when he conducted operas like OTELLO, without a score in front of him, I could appreciate his genius.

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 3/21/21 at 8:37pm

A terrible man can have amazing talents, even genius. But terrible men don’t deserve to be celebrated. He was a terrible man. No celebration here. Glad he can’t attack anyone anymore.

[joevitus]

Posted: 3/22/21 at 2:16am

MikeInTheDistrict said: "joevitus said: ""Levine had sex with teenaged boys (though in most instances, they were of age of consent in thestates where they lived). It's a horrible thing for him to have done, especially as he seems to have used his power and position in the world of classical music to get these boys to do something they did not want to do,but terms like "his monstrosity" makes it sound like he's agay Humbert Humbert. "


Rape. It was rape. The term we use for what you're describing here is not "having sex" with someone who "did not want to do" that. It is rape. James Levine was a rapist. WTF relevance does "age of consent" bear when one of the parties was groomed, manipulated, and coerced into giving said "consent" and there was such a huge power differential at play? The boys he raped were barely out of childhood, physically and certainly psychologically. What Levine did was no different from what Harvey Weinstein did, and the latter has received far stronger words than "monstrosity."

I am a mental health professional. I provide therapy to people who are victims of trauma -- not just sexual trauma, but all kinds. Levine's behavior was abusive beyond just his sexual offenses, and would be traumatic to grown adults, let alone a young person who hasn't even finished puberty yet. I see firsthand how physical, emotional, and sexual abuse devastates people. I don't think you fully comprehend the egregious nature of the behavior you are describing here."

Rape is a very dicey term here, but of course rape is a powerful word, so it's the one used. As he did not physically force anyone, and all but I think one were of the age of legal consent, I'm going to say he "sexually abused"  and manipulated most and additionally engaged in statutory rape with at least one.

I was sexually abused myself, and at about the same age as these men when they suffered those experiences (though I believe was below the age of consent for my state--I don't find that info easy to look up). I don't consider anyone "just" sexually abused. It's a terrible thing to have happened, in and of itself, and it has ongoing ramifications. That doesn't make it rape. Your definitions and emotions are not more valid than mine.

[A Director]

Posted: 3/22/21 at 4:40am

joevitus - Why are you splitting hairs? Why does it matter what the age of consent was/is in a particular state? Are you giving Levine wiggle room if the age of the victims matched the age of consent? Does that make it okay for what Levine did to his victims? Of the men who come forward with their stories, we know how old they were Levine abused them. We do not know anything about his victims who remained silent. How many parents were paid to remain silent?

Here's the 2017 New York Times article. It doesn't sound to me that any of these men gave their consent when Levine abused them. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/03/arts/music/james-levine-met-opera.html

James Levine was a monster who used his power to abuse his victims! The people and institutions that turned the other way were his enablers. May he rot in hell.

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/22/21 at 8:15am

For all the burnishing of Levine's interpretive prowess, I cannot think of a single score where I would rate his recording as my benchmark, especially in the symphonic repertoire. He always struck me as more of a showman than a serious artist, and the frequent performances I heard him conduct at the Met during the last 20 years of his tenure rarely rose about the level of competent (and, sometimes, fell quite short of that). He was a skilled pianist, but when I heard him as an accompanist of singers, he was either deferential or overly indulgent. The one time I heard him conduct the BSO live, a Brahms 2nd, it was sloppy and under-rehearsed.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 3/22/21 at 9:59am

joevitus said: "Rape is a very dicey term here, but of course rape is a powerful word, so it's the oneused. As he did not physically force anyone, and all but I think one were of the age of legal consent, I'm going to say he"sexually abused" and manipulated most andadditionally engaged in statutoryrape with at least one."

You are dead wrong. Rape (federal definition) is “the penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

That's it. No physical force is even remotely required. Rape is a powerful word and the right one to use here. And age of consent is irrelevant. 

Updated On: 3/22/21 at 09:59 AM

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 3/22/21 at 11:08am

HogansHero said: "joevitus said: "Rape is a very dicey term here, but of course rape is a powerful word, so it's the oneused. As he did not physically force anyone, and all but I think one were of the age of legal consent, I'm going to say he"sexually abused" and manipulated most andadditionally engaged in statutoryrape with at least one."

You are dead wrong. Rape (federal definition)is “the penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

That's it. No physical force is even remotely required. Rape is a powerful word and the right one to use here. And age of consent is irrelevant."

Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU Hogan! You are forever and a day a sound voice of reason on this board. 

[rosheider]

Posted: 3/22/21 at 5:27pm

Arrogance and bullying are very prevalent in the professional music world, so sexual coercion is not surprising to hear of. 

[joevitus]

Posted: 3/23/21 at 10:06am

CarlosAlberto said: "HogansHero said: "joevitus said: "Rape is a very dicey term here, but of course rape is a powerful word, so it's the oneused. As he did not physically force anyone, and all but I think one were of the age of legal consent, I'm going to say he"sexually abused" and manipulated most andadditionally engaged in statutoryrape with at least one."

You are dead wrong. Rape (federal definition)is “the penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

That's it. No physical force is even remotely required. Rape is a powerful word and the right one to use here. And age of consent is irrelevant."

Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU Hogan! You are forever and a day a sound voice of reason on this board."

This is a strange use of the word consent, as the people involved seem to have given their consent, but felt manipulated in doing so. Was Levine ever put on trial for rape? Did his actions meet the standard for a trial?

[joevitus]

Posted: 3/23/21 at 10:11am

A Director said: "joevitus - Why are you splitting hairs? Why does it matter what the age of consent was/is in a particular state? Are you giving Levine wiggle room if the age of the victims matched the age of consent? Does that make it okay for what Levine did to his victims? Of the men who come forward with their stories, we know how old they were Levine abused them. We do not know anything about his victims who remained silent. How many parents were paid to remain silent?

Here's the 2017 New York Times article. It doesn't sound to me that any of these men gave their consent when Levine abused them. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/03/arts/music/james-levine-met-opera.htm

James Levine was a monster who used his power to abuse his victims! The people and institutions that turned the other way were his enablers. May he rot in hell."

Words have meaning. If he "coaxed" the boys do to this, that means they did indeed give consent. I don't deny for a moment that this was manipulative, wrong, well-deserving of his losing his position and his reputation. But it isn't rape. 

I'll also note that while people here (I can't remember who) said that if you are the victim of abuse even reading about this stuff is triggering, and somehow that proves how terrible Levine was. Well, I think Levine was a terrible human being, but I was abused, at just about the age these people were, and I am in no way "triggered" by the news events. I can still parse the art from the artist. 

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 3/23/21 at 10:28am

Good for you for being able to do that. Do you want a medal? I was 14 when I was raped by a teacher. I am 34 now. Reading about this man, reading people applaud his talents while knowing what he did, it is triggering FOR ME. And I guarantee it is triggering for others. You’re lucky it isn’t triggering for you. But just because you’re in the position, doesn’t mean others aren’t hurting or affected or triggered.

And no, my being triggered doesn’t “prove” how terrible he was. The facts that he coerced and sexually assaulted UNDERAGE MEN is all the proof we need to know he was terrible.

[MikeInTheDistrict]

Posted: 3/23/21 at 11:24am

I have compassion for anyone who was abused, and certainly would never want to invalidate anyone's experience. However, as a therapist, I also know that victims of abuse often have immense psychological defenses against registering the full gravity of what happened to them, among them denial, minimization, and compartmentalization. Everyone compartmentalizes to some extent to maintain their sanity. Victims compartmentalize to avoid being overwhelmed by their trauma. People who do bad things often compartmentalize in order to maintain the integrity of their self-concept and avoid taking responsibility for their actions.

Separating "the art from the artist" is a willful and arbitrary act of compartmentalization, much as Levine probably did in his own mind to enable him to continue abusing young people for decades. You can't separate the art from the artist because the art is a product of the artist; the whole human being goes into the creation of art. They were created by the same person. Levine's victims don't just cease to exist the moment he picked up a baton. Their suffering was ongoing through every performance. Any distinction we draw between the art and the artist is artificial. No art is so important that we should overlook human cruelty to enjoy it. In fact, pitting art against human decency is reminiscent of the very sort of mind games Levine would foist upon his victims:

"Levine would ask his followers certain questions, such as if a young musician could save the life of just one person, would it be Levine or the musician’s mother?

"A similar poser offered the premise of a burning house and a choice to save either the only copy of Beethoven’s “Ninth Symphony” or a baby."

Under other circumstances, one could write this off as gallows humor. However, actions speak louder than words, and Levine's behavior is indicative of a severe disregard for human suffering, the welfare of children (yes, children), and an egregious lack of remorse. He was, quite frankly, a narcissistic psychopath, and I am not just throwing around that term lightly. Can a psychopath even produce "art" as anything other than a performative or intellectual exercise? What is the product of such a morally warped and perverted man? What feeling or sentiment informed the motions of that baton if the person wielding it could not feel empathy or remorse for the lives he potentially was devastating?

You can't separate the art from the artist as anything other than an artificial intellectual exercise in compartmentalization. Updated On: 3/23/21 at 11:24 AM

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 3/23/21 at 11:48am

As far as I’m concerned, the artist used his power that he gained through his art to prey on his victims. So the art is intertwined with the artist.

There are many terrible dictators who were powerful orators. But we don’t separate their good deliveries of speeches from the awful crimes they committed.

There are plenty of other wonderful conductors who didn’t abuse their power and ruin lives. Go listen to them instead. Celebrating this man’s work only erases the monstrous things he did as a human being.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 3/23/21 at 2:08pm

Some of these last few posts have been enlightening to me (not counting the absurd one that misapprehends the concept of consent). What these posts illuminate is that what Levine did was intrinsic to his work, and thus the notion of separating the art from the artist is not possible. Had Jimmy from Cincinnati robbed banks, this would not be in the same posture (IMO).

[KFC1991]

Posted: 3/23/21 at 2:34pm

I appreciate wanting to get the facts straight, but one of his victims said the abuse started at age 15, and according to the NY Post article, age of consent is 17 at the time the abuse began, so he couldn't legally consent, ergo it's "rape."

I can separate the art from the artist. The fact that Levine was wicked doesn't factor into my opinion that his terrible conducting ruined TWO studio recordings of Parsifal that had great singers. In Wagner, he confused glacial pacing with profundity.