In his weblog here at artsjournal.com Greg Sandow recently wrote a stunning blind item, “Dangerous Ground,” about an American
classical-music megastar’s rumored pedophilia. Among other things, he argued that classical
musicians, their “artistic piety” and “pretense of loftiness” notwithstanding, should be judged by
the same moral standards as the rest of us and, by implication, should not be treated differently
from pop stars. In light of the Michael Jackson trial, the item is especially timely.
Sandow wrote that he is regularly asked:
Why … do critics so often and so strongly praise a musician widely said to be
a pedophile? Though “widely said,” in this context, isn’t putting the case strongly enough. This
musician is an international celebrity, one of the most famous names in the business. He’s wildly
popular in New York and elsewhere, and has worked for years with one of the most powerful
institutions in classical music. … Shouldn’t they deplore him and expose him?
They should, Sandow believes. But he points out, correctly, that to write an exposé you need
evidence not hearsay, however widespread, such as a victim willing to speak on the record, or
eye-witness testimony, or police documents and so on. He also asserts that he and other music
writers don’t have the resources of investigative reporters or the time it would take to delve
deeply enough to find the evidence, if any.
He goes on to point out how he would conduct a probe if he could, but
inexplicably fails to mention that when the musician in question was hired by a well-known
European orchestra, the appointment became a controversial issue in the German press, more so
than in the American press, and that in an obvious response to the rumors, the Green Party (in the
city where the appointment was made) demanded that the star’s moral conduct be vetted by the
New York Police Department. The debate was also mentioned in major German music
publications.
Admittedly, much of the controversy centered on the high salary to be paid him. But it’s
certainly newsworthy when an American megastar takes a position with a European orchestra and
is confronted with such serious concerns as he faced about possible criminal behavior. American
music journalists, including Sandow, could easily have written about this.
In fact, some of them did. One major American music critic I know of reported at the time
that the musician had to present “a certificate of ‘good behavior,’ i.e., proof that he has not been
convicted of a criminal offense or that any such charges may be pending.” The critic did not get
more specific about why this demand had been made — he never mentioned the rumored
pedophilia. On the contrary, he sympathized with the musician, calling the demand “outrageous,”
and wondered why he agreed to take the job despite such an insult.
“The German press was far more frank than the American press, but I think it was still
somewhat hazy,” the critic told me Monday. “It’s always been a taboo subject, an almost
impossible subject to write about,” he said of the pedophile rumors. “Many have tried. Also,
nobody cares. Everybody knows who Michael Jackson is. Nobody in the wide world outside of
classical music knows who [this person] is. He’s completely closeted and will not even admit he’s
gay.”
Another thing about Sandow’s blind item is puzzling: Why didn’t he mention a well-known
book recently out in paperback, which reports that investigative reporters from The New York
Times, Newsday, New York magazine and The New Yorker “probed police reports” and came up
with nothing? The book recounts the rumors, terming them “scurrilous gossip.” And while the
book’s tone is guarded, it’s also fairly explicit. For instance, it names the person (though I won’t):
“The gist of the stories was that [the star in question] was guilty of criminal behavior” and that the
board of directors of the institution for which he worked “had condoned [it] by paying off the
aggrieved parties.” One tale “had [the star] soliciting a child in Pittsburgh,” but the book points
out he was, at the time, in Boston. Another tale “with the same theme had the New York
subway as its location.” Here again the author doubts the story.
The most devastating rumor — it was “particularly persistent,” according to the book — was
that the musician “had had a relationship with a boy whose parents had gone to the [institution’s]
board, threatening to expose the situation. Supposedly the board had authorized a major payoff to
the family.” This was “adamantly and consistently denied,” the book says. It adds a footnote that
in the author’s own interviews with board members, they “all denied that the payoff ever
happened.” This included one board member who had resigned over his disagreement with the
star’s professional judgments, not over his rumored sexual behavior. Further, the author relates,
investigative reporters checked into the institution’s “financial statements” and did not find
evidence of any illicit payment. And the musician, moreover, “denied the accusation as a total
fabrication” in an interview with the Times.
So we’re left with the same dilemma now as ever. Musicians are terribly vicious gossips, and
it’s very possible the stories are untrue. What a ridiculous thing that would be, especially
considering that many still credit them almost without question (including me). Everyone repeats
these stories, but no one knows who the source ever was. It’s important to consider the issue that
such widespread rumors continue to raise, but it’s also important to speak publicly only with
concrete knowledge.
