|
increpatio
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: 16:44:21, 09-07-2007 » |
|
Not sure exactly what I think of it just now, except that I do have some sympathy for Robert King, having a lot of love for his recordings. Should probably temper it a bit. Because he has produced recordings you like, that somehow implies greater sympathy towards his plight? What about those he abused, who are conveniently shunted out from most discussions of this topic? Maybe their lives are less important than that of a 'great musician'  Artists deserve greater sympathy and understanding than the rest of the population. Total and utter bullshit  Oh I didn't agree with that part of the article at all and the tone in general did strike me as being a bit odd (others might word it more strongly). I do not know the details of his case. Yes, the abuse of a position of authority , coupled with the abuse itself, is very reprehensible (for want of a stronger word). However, all I meant to say was that, automatically from being familiar with his recordings I would have some sympathy for him...similar to finding out that an old classmate that was quite agreeable has since landed themselves in prison. And yes, I agree with what Ian and Time have just said, though not having the same gut reaction as Ian. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kittybriton
|
|
« Reply #16 on: 16:46:02, 09-07-2007 » |
|
It saddens me that somebody who has contributed so much in one area, has done so much damage in another.
To me there is an important difference between King, and less high-profile offenders; he has contributed much to his chosen field. Many offenders don't seem to make much of a positive contribution at all.
It was something of a surprise to me to find out years after leaving school that there was a very good reason why my middle-school music teacher never allowed girls to join the school band. While I was spared anything nasty myself, my step-daughter was abused by her father, and while she's quite bright, it seems unlikely that she will ever progress emotionally beyond five years old.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Click me -> About meor me -> my handmade storeNo, I'm not a complete idiot. I'm only a halfwit. In fact I'm actually a catfish. |
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #17 on: 16:53:56, 09-07-2007 » |
|
To me there is an important difference between King, and less high-profile offenders; he has contributed much to his chosen field. Many offenders don't seem to make much of a positive contribution at all. That makes no difference to how we should treat their offences. Nor should the offence make any difference to how we view King's recordings. He is a criminal that should be viewed just like anyone else who committed the same act. What he's contributed to his chosen field should not make the slightest difference in that respect - or should we say those who haven't made high-profile recordings should get more severe sentences for such offences? (btw, I do agree with those that think we should extend sympathy rather than retributive feelings evenly - it's just the way this is done very selectively that angers me) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #18 on: 17:07:27, 09-07-2007 » |
|
To me there is an important difference between King, and less high-profile offenders; he has contributed much to his chosen field. Many offenders don't seem to make much of a positive contribution at all. That makes no difference to how we should treat their offences. Nor should the offence make any difference to how we view King's recordings. He is a criminal that should be viewed just like anyone else who committed the same act. What he's contributed to his chosen field should not make the slightest difference in that respect - or should we say those who haven't made high-profile recordings should get more severe sentences for such offences? I personally don't think that his sentences should be any different from anyone else guilty of similar offences (and with a similar estimated chance of re-offending). I do not know if I understand the judge's decision not to bar him from working with children again; he would still be able to contribute plenty to his profession with that restriction. But the judge (presumably) has considered the issue much more carefully than I, and has vastly more experience, so. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mary Chambers
|
|
« Reply #19 on: 17:10:18, 09-07-2007 » |
|
You are all assuming this conviction is correct. I don't know the details of the case, though I've known the outline for a while. I am cautious, because there has recently been a case locally of a choirmaster (a first-rate one) being convicted of downloading child porn. On appeal, he was completely exonerated. It had been a malicious attempt to incriminate him. He suffered for many months, lost his job, and so on.
In any case, I don't see any good reason for avoiding King's CDs, and I've noticed with approval that Hyperion isn't withdrawing them, and the BBC hasn't avoided him either. The best concert I ever went to was conducted by Robert King.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #20 on: 17:17:24, 09-07-2007 » |
|
You are all assuming this conviction is correct. I don't know the details of the case, though I've known the outline for a while. I am cautious, because there has recently been a case locally of a choirmaster (a first-rate one) being convicted of downloading child porn. On appeal, he was completely exonerated. It had been a malicious attempt to incriminate him. He suffered for many months, lost his job, and so on.
And where it's even suspected, people can go a bit nuts and make stuff up; did anyone ever see the video-documentary Capturing the Friedmans? Very difficult case where mass hysteria and victim-manipulation makes it difficult to get anything straight about what happened. And there was some similar case of mass-hysteria somewhere else in America where the person was fas exonerated after the initial conviction I think. In any case, I don't see any good reason for avoiding King's CDs, and I've noticed with approval that Hyperion isn't withdrawing them, and the BBC hasn't avoided him either. The best concert I ever went to was conducted by Robert King.
Whatever the crime, I would not in any way support the withdrawing of any artistic product because of someone's actions. I know there are some ethical grey areas, like that nazi anatomy book &c., but would still support that things be made available. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 17:22:50, 09-07-2007 by increpatio »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #21 on: 18:21:25, 09-07-2007 » |
|
OK, but what about Michael Arnold? (said he, changing the question though not its spirit - new thread, anyone?)...
Best,
Alistair
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #22 on: 18:43:41, 09-07-2007 » |
|
OK, but what about Michael Arnold? (said he, changing the question though not its spirit - new thread, anyone?)...
Best,
Alistair
Who is this? Google seems to not know much about any Michael Arnold in particular. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #23 on: 19:18:47, 09-07-2007 » |
|
Michael Arnold is the husband of Judy Arnold, who was Peter Maxwell Davies's manager for something like 30-odd years. Michael was employed as Max's accountant. Both left their jobs before Christmas amidst allegations (which have now been referred to the police) that Michael had been embezzling large amounts of money, as well as failing to complete Max's VAT returns.
Ah, rings a bell. To the pillory with them all! That's what I say. Do them a world of good.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #24 on: 21:04:05, 09-07-2007 » |
|
Not sure about the VAT return failures, but the story appears to go that MA's been arrested and is now being investigated for allegedly having filched at least half a million pounds from one of Max's business bank accounts. This has (again only reportedly) come about because Max is said to have called the police to report some banking irregularities on the said account; now I cannot help but suspect that, if only Max had banked with Coutts (which I presume he didn't), he might have stood a decent chance of having the said alleged irregularities reported to him by his bank rather than having to discover them for himself and then report them to the police (not that this would necessarily have made the eventual outcome that much different, one may suppose). For the record and for the avoidance of doubt, I am neither an employee or other professional associate of Coutts, nor do I hold any shares in that firm; I can, however, report that, when someone tried to take me for a far smaller sum (though to me by no means an insubstantial one), it was my bank, Coutts, that told me about it rather than me who had to find out for myself. If this proves anything, it may be that Coutts has a hands-on approach to its banking customers that is all too rare nowadays. It may also prove that they're prepared to take on a composer who doesn't have any money worthy of the name and who hasn't exactly acquired any over the pat 20 years that one such composer has banked with them (and, having said that, I have to add that I rather hope that the membership of this forum includes no Coutts staff)...
Anyway, stuff the commercial that isn't - let's get back to the Arnold saga...
Best,
Alistair
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #25 on: 21:44:21, 09-07-2007 » |
|
I don't exactly understand what it is that's new that's come to light in the last month or two (which is when MA seems to have been arrested), since most of the story had already been reported to me before Christmas, but as for Max finding out about what was going on, the main problem seems to have been not that his bank didn't tell him about movements on the account but that he'd signed over power of attorney to Michael Arnold some years ago and didn't have any day-to-day awareness of any transactions, except that he tried to take 40 quid out of a cash machine one day, at which point he was called into the bank and told by the manager that his account was £85000 overdrawn.
No, there's nothing new about it except that, apparently, investigations are allegedly still continuing, which may be seen to suggest that tips and icebergs are not entirely off-limits here. I'm assuming, Alistair, that you've never contemplated signing over power of attorney to your agent's husband, whether or not he claims to be a qualified accountant (and MA's actual qualifications may be a matter of some doubt, I'm not sure if that's part of the issue) ...
Your assumption is indeed as correct as you imagine it to be; that said, the signing over of a non-enduring power of attorney as in the present case (i.e. one where the donor of the power was not considered to be in any sense mentally compromised at the time of signing and has not become so subsequently) does not bar the donor of the power checking his own account and raising queries whenever he/she feel so disposed (as evidently became the case here). I suppose that the more cynical among us might wonder if this entire attorney business might have been a part of some far greater carefully contrived money laundering exercise, but I personally take leave to doubt that. It'll all come out in the wash in any case, one may suppose... Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
pim_derks
|
|
« Reply #26 on: 21:46:52, 09-07-2007 » |
|
Gombert rather more directly so. Yes, and Johann Rosenmüller.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"People hate anything well made. It gives them a guilty conscience." John Betjeman
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #27 on: 22:38:39, 09-07-2007 » |
|
No, there's nothing new about it except that, apparently, investigations are allegedly still continuing, which may be seen to suggest that tips and icebergs are not entirely off-limits here. What I find odd, though, is that the police only seem to have got involved fairly recently (although the reports may have been misleading on this), since plenty of people knew there was a problem and, indeed, Max had already dispensed with Judy and Michael's services back in about October/November 2006. That's what those cynics that I mentioned might also find even odder - after all, unless one's bank gets involved in such affairs to the extent of seeking to take something of the lead in their post-discovery conduct (even if only as part of a skin-saving exercise, PR stunt or both), the very fact that there is alleged to have been fairly widespread knowledge - or at the very least suspicion - of potential financial irregularities that nevertheless appear to have continued to go unprosecuted or even unpoliced is surely sufficient to arouse hackles about money laundering of some kind being behind it. the signing over of a non-enduring power of attorney as in the present case (i.e. one where the donor of the power was not considered to be in any sense mentally compromised at the time of signing and has not become so subsequently) does not bar the donor of the power checking his own account and raising queries whenever he/she feel so disposed I suppose some might suggest that it was 'mentally compromised' of Max not to keep an eye on his account, or to get regular and documented reports from Michael, in the first place.  I suppose that the more cynical among us might wonder if this entire attorney business might have been a part of some far greater carefully contrived money laundering exercise, but I personally take leave to doubt that. I don't think so either, not least because Michael's gambling is hardly a secret and so it seems pretty clear where the money's likely to have been going, but it does seem rather foolish of Max. Probably more a case of wanting to be free of mundane worries like where his next £85000's going. After all, when there are string quartets to be written ... Ah, yes - art blinds the artist to being taken advantage of financially! Yes, this can indeed be the case, although I take leave to wonder how much ice that notion might have cut with either Wagner or Stravinsky. One point here - which I realise is not entirely germane to the particular circumstance which we are now discussing (although it is likewise not so far from it) - is that one doesn't have to have any serious money or be involved in money laundering exercises or appoint non-enduring powers of attorney or even have agents in order to risk finding oneself at the butt end of the activities of certain people who seem determined to hoover out funds from one's bank and/or credit card account even when they are not there in the first place, as well I know from personal experience - and one really doesn't have to be engaged on a series of "Stratchclyde Quartets" in order to qualify as a potential or actual target... Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
roslynmuse
|
|
« Reply #28 on: 22:48:15, 09-07-2007 » |
|
Or even Naxos Quartets...  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #29 on: 08:27:37, 10-07-2007 » |
|
Or even Naxos Quartets... That was meant to be a joke (in the sense that I could as easily have written "Naxos concerti"...) - which clearly fell flat on its arts... Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 16:47:54, 10-07-2007 by ahinton »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
