Mikhail Pletnev ARRESTED?!

[imbetter]

https://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/07/07/thailand.pianist.arrest/

shocking news. I just thought I'd share it with all of you

[perfect_pitch]

Oh bloody hell...

This will bring back the idiotic stereotype that all male pianists are bloody kiddy-fiddlers...

Christ... If he really did do what they claim, then I shall personally delete every single file, video and throw away every CD/DVD I have of his. That's just wrong.

[faulty_damper]

So you are going to throw the baby out with the bath water.  Seems extreme considering it's a perfectly good baby.

[pianowolfi]

Oh bloody hell...

This will bring back the idiotic stereotype that all male pianists are bloody kiddy-fiddlers...

Christ... If he really did do what they claim, then I shall personally delete every single file, video and throw away every CD/DVD I have of his. That's just wrong.

Indeed bloody hell. I am shocked.

[pianowolfi]

This goes a bit more in detail:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/7877223/Russian-pianist-Mikhail-Pletnev-accused-of-child-rape-in-Thailand.html

[furtwaengler]

This goes a bit more in detail:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/7877223/Russian-pianist-Mikhail-Pletnev-accused-of-child-rape-in-Thailand.html

"...his orchestral arrangement of Prokofiev's Cinderella."

[furtwaengler]

I respect Pletnev's artistry. I think he is a great musician...I've liked listening to him because his conceptions are sometimes greatly differing from mine, and it's a fascination how different working conceptions can be (his Liszt sonata for instance). I really, really hope for the integrity of the music world, that these accusations are not true. It always effects the influence of an artist, no matter how great an artist they may be. I hate learning the dark sides of people, and no darkness is good darkness...but this steps into a different world altogether.

But Benjamin Britten's legacy has survived to a point which his musicianship can still be respected. Separation is important (music from man, but maybe even more soul from body.).

Lets just hope that none of it is true!

[alessandro]

Would Mikhail Pletnev be in Pattaya for other reasons than for bodily pleasures ?! If not, if he is indeed there for physical love, the way he is defending himself is very clumsy.   He should act with dignity and responsability and not in awe, shock or denial.

[furtwaengler]

^Oh yes, it's fun to say what he should do NOW. 

[minor9th]

But Benjamin Britten's legacy has survived to a point which his musicianship can still be respected. Separation is important (music from man, but maybe even more soul from body.).

Was Britten ever arrested or directly accused of raping boys?

[michel dvorsky]

Christ... If he really did do what they claim, then I shall personally delete every single file, video and throw away every CD/DVD I have of his. That's just wrong.

Asinine. The fact that he might be guilty of horrible crimes doesn't alter the value of his music.

That's like saying Roman Polanski movies aren't worth watching because he's a degenerate.  The fact that Bobby Fischer became a whacko anti-semitic conspiracy theorist doesn't retroactively invalidate his genius as a chess player.

You can love a person's art without loving the person.

[birba]

I'm certainly not going to defend him in his pedophilia.  But you can be sure, that 14 year-old knows more about sex than a 40 year-old times square hooker.

[ramseytheii]

Asinine. The fact that he might be guilty of horrible crimes doesn't alter the value of his music.

That's like saying Roman Polanski movies aren't worth watching because he's a degenerate.  The fact that Bobby Fischer became a whacko anti-semitic conspiracy theorist doesn't retroactively invalidate his genius as a chess player.

You can love a person's art without loving the person.

How is that asinine?  Yes, you can love a person's art without loving the person, but you don't have to.  If finding out they committed unspeakable acts taints your view of their work, how is it asinine to toss it?

And, why should anyone feel compelled to financially support a person who commits morally abhorrent acts, just because they are a great artist?  That is what is asinine.

Walter Ramsey

[michel dvorsky]

And, why should anyone feel compelled to financially support a person who commits morally abhorrent acts, just because they are a great artist?  That is what is asinine.

OK, I agree.  But there's further distinctions that ought to be made.  

1. Suppose you already bought the Pletnev albums.  In that case, (assuming you can't return the CDs) you have already financially supported him.  If you sell the CDs, you might be hurting Pletnev since you're depriving him of money he may have gotten if your buyer had bought the CDs himself.  But for most circumstances, the cost seem to be sunk.  Listening to his Mephisto Waltz from a CD you already own isn't financially abetting any accused rapists!

If you don't find any enjoyment out of his music anymore in light of the rape allegations, then that's just a personal preference.  But the asethetic qualities in, say, his Nutcracker arrangement recorded in the 1970s are just as good today as they were last week, so I find this preference to be normatively out-to-lunch.  

2. If you haven't bought any Pletnev albums, you can always watch him on Youtube or simply download his music without supporting him.  

My basic point here is that the consumption value / utility of his musical output is not zero for all but the biggest whiners.  I find it stupid to argue that the artistic output of masters like Pletnev and Polansky are worthless because they are rotten people.  It's being melodramatic and artistically dishonest.

[pianowolfi]

Anyway, so far it's "in dubio pro reo" for me.

[perfect_pitch]

I find it stupid to argue that the artistic output of masters like Pletnev and Polansky are worthless because they are rotten people.  It's being melodramatic and artistically dishonest.

So let me get this right - you're saying that you find it idiotic that people would stop listening to Pletnev because he's been accused of being a kiddy-fiddler???

Asinine. The fact that he might be guilty of horrible crimes doesn't alter the value of his music.

YOU Michel... need to get better  reading glasses - I never said he was any less of a pianist or that his music somehow was of any lesser value pianistically than it was a week ago.

I just can't justify listening to a man who has possibly committed heinous atrocities, when there are other pianists who spend their lives not touching kiddies in their naughty bits.

I'll lose whatever respect for him if the charges are true. But all I stated in the beginning post was that I won't listen to Pletnev's recordings any more if he's guilty of abusing children.

If you don't find any enjoyment out of his music anymore in light of the rape allegations, then that's just a personal preference.

EXACTLY - It's my preference. So I don't need asinine commentary from YOU!

[furtwaengler]

Was Britten ever arrested or directly accused of raping boys?

I think not, but he had a well documented infatuation for young boys throughout his life. In old Greek culture man-boy relations were common and accepted...does that make it any less abominable and wrong then what Pletnev is accused of?

[perfect_pitch]

In old Greek culture man-boy relations were common and accepted...does that make it any less abominable and wrong then what Pletnev is accused of?

Lets see - how about we get a bunch of 10 year olds together and ask them if they like to be prodded up the arse by a guy more than twice their age!

I'm willing to be the answer would be 'NO'!!!

 

[thalbergmad]

Lets see - how about we get a bunch of 10 year olds together and ask them if they like to be prodded up the arse by a guy more than twice their age!

OK, I am going to the Cubs this morning I will see what happens.

Thal

[argerichfan]

Was Britten ever arrested or directly accused of raping boys?

No. But things were different then, these days it would have landed him in plenty of hot water and trashed his career. It is certainly well corroborated that Britten enjoyed the company of young boys.  Even up to his final years he would write adoring notes to a new boy in the choir -enough damning evidence that- but Britten's interest was essentially platonic, and there is no evidence he ever raped any of them. 

As for Pletnev, he is innocent until proven guilty.  We do not have all the facts in the matter.  Alas, with his return to Russia, this may all get swept under the carpet. 

I'll certainly agree that the circumstantial evidence is very grim and disappointing for a musician I highly respect.   There have been rumours that Pletnev's proclivities were an open secret in Russian musical circles, and his residence in Pattaya -a noted hotbed of illicit conduct and corruption- is not going to help his case.  But it may not count for much in Russia.  We'll see. 

[birba]

To enjoy the company of young boys is one thing.  To rape them is another.  Britten had one love in his life besides his music.  Peter Pears.  His companion, muse and lover.  He was never incriminated for sexual harassment.

[doctor_ivory]

Christ... If he really did do what they claim, then I shall personally delete every single file, video and throw away every CD/DVD I have of his. That's just wrong.

This all reminds me about a discussion I was listening to on the BBC about Wagner.  The moderator of the discussion asked the panel of experts given that you know Wagner was such a awful human being, can you still enjoy his music?

One of the experts on the panel had a brilliant remark and said they could still appreciate Wagner's music, because  . . .
"his music is like a lonely rose that has grown on top of a dung hill."

[perfect_pitch]

Maybe... but was Wagner accused of raping young little boys???   

[ahinton]

Pletnev in Thailand might be said to have something of a precedent in Cherkassky in the same country and for reasons that may not be dissimilar apart from the arrest and charging of Pletnev, but the notion that their piano playing in both cases and conducting and transcribing in Pletnev's is somehow directly devalued by such allegations, even if ultimately proven, seems to me to hold little credibility; given that, for obvious practical and logistical reasons, it is hardly possible, let alone likely, that anyone will commit acts of rape, buggery, etc. while playing the piano, conducting or composing, the separation of the musical activities from the non-musical ones seems plainly obvious. Wagner and Chopin were anti-Semites, yet we still listen to their music and respect their creativity profoundly. The example of Britten surely needs in any case o be countered by others of composers who appeared to have a fondness for children of the opposite sex if one is to present a balanced view of such circumstances but, even then, what will this tell us about the content of their respctive musics?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

it is hardly possible, let alone likely, that anyone will commit acts of rape, buggery, etc. while playing the piano

Not so sure.

I have got this Sylvia Saint video somewhere.........................

Thal

[birba]

A porno star?

[lostinidlewonder]

For some reason I am thinking of that movie The Piano Teacher.
 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0254686/

[ramseytheii]

Pletnev in Thailand might be said to have something of a precedent in Cherkassky in the same country and for reasons that may not be dissimilar apart from the arrest and charging of Pletnev, but the notion that their piano playing in both cases and conducting and transcribing in Pletnev's is somehow directly devalued by such allegations, even if ultimately proven, seems to me to hold little credibility; given that, for obvious practical and logistical reasons, it is hardly possible, let alone likely, that anyone will commit acts of rape, buggery, etc. while playing the piano, conducting or composing, the separation of the musical activities from the non-musical ones seems plainly obvious. Wagner and Chopin were anti-Semites, yet we still listen to their music and respect their creativity profoundly. The example of Britten surely needs in any case o be countered by others of composers who appeared to have a fondness for children of the opposite sex if one is to present a balanced view of such circumstances but, even then, what will this tell us about the content of their respctive musics?

Best,

Alistair

I think it's right and actually I might go farther, and say that the musical activities of some of these can have a redeeming quality.  After all, works like Wagner's operas or Cherkassky's recordings are gifts to posterity.

But the issue for me is a financial one.  If Pletnev were long dead, and we find out about these horrific crimes, purchasing his recordings and scores would have no benefits for him.  But being alive, and I should stress if these charges are true, any purchase of a recording, score, or concert ticket, is frankly giving financial aid to a criminal.

Regardless of whether the act is being committed in the concert hall (and how do we know it isn't, during intermission?) how can we in good conscience give our financial treasure to a person who was proven to have committed these crimes? 

Walter Ramsey

[ahinton]

the issue for me is a financial one.  If Pletnev were long dead, and we find out about these horrific crimes, purchasing his recordings and scores would have no benefits for him.  But being alive, and I should stress if these charges are true, any purchase of a recording, score, or concert ticket, is frankly giving financial aid to a criminal.

Don't forget, however, that not only would he need to have been dead for at least 50 years in respect of his recordings and 70 years in respect of his writings in order for his Estate to be able to derive no financial benefit from them, there is also a financial benefit to be had by others from this material (publishers, record compaines, etc.) whose fault his crimes, if he has indeed committed them, it would not have been.

Regardless of whether the act is being committed in the concert hall (and how do we know it isn't, during intermission?) how can we in good conscience give our financial treasure to a person who was proven to have committed these crimes? 

But many of us will already have done it! Until he (or anyone else) is convicted of such crimes, people will continue to make those purchases without having to feel any need to question their "good conscience" and, if the discovery of the crimes is made only long after commission of the first of them and the period of time between that discovery and successful conviction is also lengthy, people will have been making such purchases over equally long periods of time without this fact needing to affect their consciences and, after all, one cannot reasonably expect to have a retrospective conscience about such things after the event.

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

If the alligations are true, than his conduct is horrific. But. If we are to strip from our conciousness each and every musician, composer and artist who has or had something nasty in his/her personallity and/or conduct we would be left with rather few (which quite possibly would include JS Bach, so we wouldn't be lost, but still...). The art should be viewed seperate from the artist, I think.

gep

[ahinton]

If the alligations are true, than his conduct is horrific. But. If we are to strip from our conciousness each and every musician, composer and artist who has or had something nasty in his/her personallity and/or conduct we would be left with rather few (which quite possibly would include JS Bach, so we wouldn't be lost, but still...). The art should be viewed seperate from the artist, I think.

I'm not sure that it is always entirely possible - or even necessarily recommended - to try to view the art as being entirely separate from the artist but I do accept that the very notion of trying to judge the former by what we might know of the actions of the latter is inevitably and understandably fraught with flaws. For that matter (and I admit to not being a musicologist who is a Bach scholar), I do not even know for sure whether every aspect of the life of J S Bach would necessarily guarantee his exoneration from the pointing of all accusing moral or legal fingers, whereas I know as well as anyone that his 19th century compatriot Wagner often behaved as the kind of person with whom one might well be excused for wanting to have as little to do as possible, but there is absolutely no way that I could live without the finest works of either.

Another aspect of the case that we are considering here is, of course, that if Pletnev is not only found to be not guilty but actually IS not guilty, the stress that will be visited upon him until he is proved not guilty is something that may well be imagined and may quite possible be more adverse for him as an artist of international renown as it would be for certain other public figures.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

After all, works like Wagner's operas or Cherkassky's recordings are gifts to posterity.

Gifts to posterior as well, judging by this thread.

Thal

[ramseytheii]

Don't forget, however, that not only would he need to have been dead for at least 50 years in respect of his recordings and 70 years in respect of his writings in order for his Estate to be able to derive no financial benefit from them, there is also a financial benefit to be had by others from this material (publishers, record compaines, etc.) whose fault his crimes, if he has indeed committed them, it would not have been.

But that's why I say the issue is that the person is still alive.  Maybe he has a family somewhere, that after his death would financially benefit, but of course why should we accuse his family of committing crimes that he may have done?

As long as the person is still alive, any financial transactions we make are benefitting that person.  If they are guilty of horrific crimes, paying that living person money is funding a criminal lifestyle.  You can only "separate the art from the person" in a philosophical sense; you may be paying money to hear a concert, but that money could be going towards a ticket to Thailand and a pair of gold-plated handcuffs.

But many of us will already have done it! Until he (or anyone else) is convicted of such crimes, people will continue to make those purchases without having to feel any need to question their "good conscience" and, if the discovery of the crimes is made only long after commission of the first of them and the period of time between that discovery and successful conviction is also lengthy, people will have been making such purchases over equally long periods of time without this fact needing to affect their consciences and, after all, one cannot reasonably expect to have a retrospective conscience about such things after the event.

That doesn't negate my point at all and actually I don't understand why you even said it.  Daniel Barenboim could be in secret a serial killer, and we are all going to his concerts and he is using the money to buy high-powered rifles, but of course we wouldn't question our conscience unless he is caught committing a crime.  Why would we?  I don't understand what your point is.

If this person is found guilty, the money we already spent is already spent.  But why spend more?  Why buy another cd, another score, another concert ticket, and fund the lifestyle of a criminal?  How can anyone's conscience allow them to do that?

Walter Ramsey

[ahinton]

As long as the person is still alive, any financial transactions we make are benefitting that person.  If they are guilty of horrific crimes, paying that living person money is funding a criminal lifestyle.  You can only "separate the art from the person" in a philosophical sense; you may be paying money to hear a concert, but that money could be going towards a ticket to Thailand and a pair of gold-plated handcuffs.

That doesn't negate my point at all and actually I don't understand why you even said it.  Daniel Barenboim could be in secret a serial killer, and we are all going to his concerts and he is using the money to buy high-powered rifles, but of course we wouldn't question our conscience unless he is caught committing a crime.  Why would we?  I don't understand what your point is.

If this person is found guilty, the money we already spent is already spent.  But why spend more?  Why buy another cd, another score, another concert ticket, and fund the lifestyle of a criminal?  How can anyone's conscience allow them to do that?

The principal point that I was making here is that it is not only the artist that derives financial benefit from his/her work - think of the concert venues, managers, PR people, record companies, radio and TV stations and the rest. And just imagine if everyone boycotted, say, Benjamin Britten and Ralph Vaughan Williams - think of all the other composers and artists that would soon be unable to benefit from funds from trusts set up in their names...

Best,

Alistair

[pianowolfi]

I believe he is innocent and that he has been denigrated for some reason.

Here is a statement from him:

https://www.mikhailpletnev.net/

[shiftyoliver]

If his work have artistic merit, why shouldn't I support him? I don't care about his personal life, it's none of my business. I found out some years ago (believe it or not) that my hairdresser was an ex drug dealer. Didn't stop me from seeing him, I liked the way he cut my hair and his prices were dirt cheap. Again, what he does on his own time is none of my business, I only care if he gets the job done.

I heard similar things from some female friends in regards to Tiger Woods after that whole scandal surrounding with quips of "That man's apology was bs" and "I'll never watch him play every again". I don't even understand why he had to apologize in the first place, I didn't watch him for life advice in relationships, I watch him because he's a damn good golfer. I still buy his books on golf simply because he knows what he's talking about.

And for someone not being able to separate a person from whatever background I find somewhat childish and petty. They should try to be judged separately and objectively imo. On the flip side of the coin, there was a piano competition in my local area. The winner ended up being some legally blind white chick. I heard her and the other semi-finalists and imo and others, her music definitely was not on par with the other semi-finalists. Whether the judges would agree with me or not about her skill is debatable but I would bet my house that her unfortunate turn of events in her life already made an impact on the judges to be objective to separate her music from her background. Many agreed that the win was truly political.

[ahinton]

https://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/dec/03/mikhail-pletnev-investigation-dropped

Best,

Alistair

[birba]

I'm just curious to know why they were dropped and what was behind all this.

[pianowolfi]

I am sure he is not guilty. It was a f******* conspiracy. And now they saw that they have no chance.

[thalbergmad]

It was a f******* conspiracy

Unusual language from Wolfi and he has too many asterisks.

Thal

[pianowolfi]

Unusual language from Wolfi and he has too many asterisks.

Thal

Yes one too many   Argh

ARGHH

They are accusing Julian Assange as well, of course wrongly.

F* (I know there aren't enough asterisks)

[furtwaengler]

Yes one too many  Argh

ARGHH

They are accusing Julian Assange as well, of course wrongly.

F* (I know there aren't enough asterisks)

? ? ? ? ?

Not enough question marks for an asterisk mad Wolfi!

(plus they must be spaced because of smileys )

[omar_roy]

Doesn't change my opinion of him as a musician.  I was part of a master class with a pianist who was later charged with soliciting sex from a minor, not sure if the charges ever led to conviction, but I still respect the man as a musician.

Inexcusable, either way.