Jump to content

Talk:Gilbert Levine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sir??? Gilbert Levine

[edit]

OK, what's going on here? Since when does a papal/pontifical knighthood entitle the recipient to be known as "Sir"? I've done some research and can find (a) no mention of such a title in the external links to the papal Orders of Knighthoods, and (b) no other papal knight who uses "Sir", unless such a title came from an honour in the British system. (Btw, even if Levine had been given an honorary British knighthood, being a U.S. citizen he still wouldn't be entitled to call himself Sir Gilbert.) -- JackofOz 04:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Benedict XVI's Use of "Sir"

[edit]

Pope Benedict XVI referred to Levine as "Sir" in this July 29, 2005 speech for that year's World Youth Day in Köln [1]...it's in German, but if you scroll down to the bottom, you'll see the words "Sir Gilbert Levine" in the last paragraph, thanking those involved in the performance of the Missa Solemnis.

MidnightMarauder 17:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, I came across that link in my research for this question. Call me a heretic if you like, but I still question the Pope's authority to unilaterally decree that a person is now to be known as "Sir". That title is a British title, not one that has ever been associated with pontifical knighthoods. To be consistent, all papal knights should now be "Sir"s, but afaik Levine is the only one. This appelation given to Gilbert Levine surely has to be an example of Benedict XVI's odd Germanic sense of humour, that's gone awry by being mistakenly interpreted as a serious official statement. Someone hasn't been doing their homework, methinks. -- JackofOz 14:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JackofOz. No matter what the Pope says in a random speech, the rules of chivalry are the rules of chivalry (in Rome as in the UK), and no pontifical knighthood allows its recipient to use the British title "Sir". Please allow me to summarize: pontifical knighthood - PAPAL STATE; British title "Sir" - UNITED KINGDOM (i.e., different country to Papal State); Gilbert Levine is a US citizen - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (i.e., different country to Papal State and United Kingdom). Therefore, anyone, especially an American, who adopts a British title because he/she has received a papal honor is PRETENTIOUS and WRONG. I am sure Mr Levine (this is his proper American title by the way) would ever stoop so low... -- piersbertrand 12:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What would be "pretentious and wrong" would be to disrespect the Pope (and his Church, and its 1 Billion + adherents) who bestowed the honor, by NOT using the title which the Pontiff conferred. In addition to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, Maestro Gilbert Levine has been referred to officially as "Sir Gilbert" by these Roman Catholic institutions: in the Roman Curia - the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity, the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialog, the Prefecture of the Pontifical Household, the Vatican Press Office, as well as: the Archdioceses of Baltimore, Cologne, Krakow, and Washington; the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh; the Metropolitan Council and the Prior of Cologne Cathedral; and the Knights of Columbus, inter alia. MidnightMarauder (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Levine is referred to as Sir Gilbert Levine in many places, including his orchestra's own literature, we have to acknowledge that the title is actually being used, however inappropriate it may be. What I most strenuously question, though, is why, of the probably thousands of papal knights out there, has the title "Sir" only been given to this one particular knight and no others. That was the basis of my question. I don't question the Pope's right to decree titles wherever he wants - he is the head of state of a sovereign country, after all. But where's the consistency? Where's the formal declaration of the establishment of the title; and if there were one, why does it apply to Levine alone, and not all the others? Why isn't this seen as a slap in the face of all the "non-Sir" papal knights? I mean absolutely no disrespect to Jewish people, but if the Church is going to make a special title that applies to one and only one papal knight, wouldn't a Catholic have precedence over a non-Catholic? It was seen as an extraordinary honour for a Jewish person to given a papal knighthood at all, let alone going the extra step of calling him "Sir". I still maintain that this was either a joke or a mistake on the part of Benedict XVI, but it's been taken at face value, very naively, and misinterpreted extremely literally. We also have to consider other cases where "Sir" is used inappropriately, and ensure we're being consistent. The most obvious example is Bob Geldof. He was given an honorary British knighthood; honorary, because he's not a British subject or a citizen of a Commonwealth realm, but a citizen of Ireland. He gets to use KBE after his name, but not to call himself "Sir Bob". Now, vast numbers of people do in fact call him "Sir Bob", inappropriately. Our article, however, calls him Mr Bob Geldof KBE, and we point why he's not entitled to "Sir", while also acknowledging that he is in fact often referred to as "Sir Bob", in many cases by people who should know better. So, why can't we adopt exactly the same approach with Mr Levine? Many sources do refer to him as Sir Gilbert, but we don't have to just passively accept that as his formally correct title. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further, as User:Yopie points out here, "Sir" is a British title, given by the British monarch to British subjects etc; it doesn't even apply to non-subjects of the monarch who get honorary knighthoods from the British monarch. The Holy See is not a British institution, and does not even use English as an official language afaik, so where does the entirely English title "Sir" come from? How would it apply (hypothetically) to a papal knight from France, Germany, Spain, Croatia, Poland, Portugal ...? It wouldn't. Which is exactly why it's wrong for Mr Gilbert Levine to carry this title. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Pope's conductor"

[edit]

The section on the pope seems WP:UNDUE. Just looked at Beverly Sills, an opera singer chosen at random. She held at least one concert (while head of the NYC Met) for Ronald Reagan when he was President. All Presidents, maybe of all countries, for all I know, ask people to entertain them. For free! Pres. Obama can have as many performances by as many notables as his schedule can stand. But these are not all that notable in themselves. They are routine. Nothing wrong in mentioning it here, maybe even including "pope's conductor" phrase, but having a large separate paragraph is inordinate. Student7 (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hagiographic tone

[edit]

I have begun to tone down the fawning, hagiographic tone of this article, though I do not claim completeness yet. Prior versions have read much, too much like a besotted fan's page about Maestro Levine. The purpose of wikipedia is to present "just the facts" and not be a fan page for any person or organisation.

In addition to that, I am with JackofOz about the "Sir" question. With all due respect to Pope Benedict and the late Pope John Paul II, only (repeat, only) British subjects use the title "Sir", as explained above. However, I have put Levine's pontifical knighthood title next to his name at the very beginning, as that seems fair. DJRafe (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your "sir" argument doesn't seem to be getting stronger as it's repeated. Currently, the first reference in the article is from "Muso" a British publication that, in profiling Maestro Levine, called its article "Sir Gilbert Levine." None of your arguments have cited any sources or facts that challenge the reasoning and references I have put forth earlier; they only refer to British practice regarding British knighthoods. This isn't a matter of "respect" for the two Pontiffs you mention. Maestro Levine holds a knighthood that is in the sole gift of the Roman Pontiff. The Pope is according to Wikipedia, "the Church's highest earthly authority in matters of faith, morality and Church governance...he holds supreme authority over the Church in concert with the College of Bishops, of which he is the head." As such, he has the authority to decree that a Papal Knight be called "Sir." In response to JackofOz's argument, tt would be as if the Queen herself, used the title "Sir Bob" to refer to Bob Geldof. Fortunately, as I have mentioned, a great number of sources, both Catholic and professional, refer to Maestro Levine as "Sir," so I don't think the matter is too hazy in the first place. MidnightMarauder (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the anti-"Sir" argument holds up quite well, exposulated by myself, JackofOz and piersbertrand, based on empirical reality. From looking at the wikipedia page on the Order of St Gregory the Great, many distinguished figures have received that honour, among them Maestro Levine. Just as a sampler, not one of those other figures in the list on that page uses the title "Sir" based on receiving of that honour from the Catholic Church. Not Bob Hope, not Ricardo Montalban, not Mordecai Waxman, no one else. Levine is the only such knight of this order who does so. The two "Sirs" on that list, Matt Busby and Jimmy Savile, are indeed "Sirs", but that is because they have received knighthoods from the British monarch, which is theone and only world-wide accepted use of the honourific in everyday communication, for subjects of the British Commonwealth.
The analogy with Bob Geldof fails, because Geldof himself does not refer to himself as "Sir Bob". The popular press does sometimes, but the qualifier is understood that it is not official. Likewise, I have seen Bernard Haitink and Andre Previn referred to occasionally as "Sir Bernard Haitink" and "Sir Andre Previn", since they have received honourary KBE's. However, this is incorrect, and in their own official biographies, they never at any point use the "Sir" to refer to themselves. DJRafe (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely with DJRafe. We don't call Charles Barkley "Sir Charles Barkley" just because he gets called that by some people, but we do refer to the fact that this is his nickname. As I suggested up above, I would be happy to include a note that (a) reports the fact that Levine is sometimes referred to as "Sir" Gilbert Levine, but (b) states that the title "Sir" is completely unofficial and is not appropriate. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue has nothing to do with popular usage. As MidnightMarauder correctly points out, the Pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church. In such matters of Church governance and titles, His Holiness is the sole authority. Pope Benedict XVI's usage of this title in relation to Gilbert Levine is not, as JackofOz rudely asserts above, an example of the Pope's "odd Germanic sense of humor." That completely mischaracterizes this Pontifical statement. An elementary understanding of the Church, and particularly of the generation of Papal documents within the Pontifical Household and the Roman Curia, would show that such written Papal statements, published as this one is on the Vatican web site, go through exhaustive internal vetting. Your arguments border, sadly, in fact, on anti-Catholic prejudice, which has absolutely no place on Wikipedia. Re Bernard Haitink and Andre Previn, their Knighthoods, as with those of other non-British honorees, are British honors, whose the usage of the title "Sir," has its own prescriptions. Levine's is not. So, such rules simply do not apply. Re other Pontifical Knights, that is a matter for the Holy Father himself to adjudicate, should he so wish. Pageofmusic (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) That is an absurd and offensive charge to lay at my feet. Without going into my background, I happen to have far more than "an elementary understanding" of the Church, and I do not have any "anti-Catholic prejudice". You, on the other hand, appear to be regarding every single papal utterance as infallible. Just because a pope says something, does not necessarily make it true. Popes are fallible human beings, and sometimes, as with all of us, their judgment is not quite on the mark. Remember the flak Benedict received over his 2006 speech about Muhammad? I’m not arguing with whatever theology was behind his words, just his judgment in saying what he said, which may have been intended to bring Islam and Christianity closer together, but had exactly the opposite effect. He caused major offence, not intentionally I’m sure, but it’s an example of how his judgment is sometimes questionable.

We're talking about whether or not the Pope has the authority to create new orders or amend existing order of knighthood and all the paraphernalia/titles/postnominals etc that go with them. And of course he does. Nobody questions that, least of all me.

The website on the Order of St Gregory the Great talks about various things: a particular place in Papal processions and in ceremonies of the Church; an elaborate uniform, a white plumed hat, decorations, a badge, a sword, a riband. But nowhere is there any mention of any “Sir” or “Dame” appellation.

New Advent’s page on Pontifical Decorations also goes into quite some detail, but nowhere is there any mention of an entitlement to be known as “Sir” or “Dame”. They do mention barons and counts, and there’s even even mention of some titles being transferable by right of primogeniture. But that’s all within a very, very, specific context. You may be aware of the singer John McCormack, who was given a papal honour and often billed himself for his stage performances as “Count John McCormack”. That was clearly highly inappropriate in a general public setting; within the structures of the Church, however, it would have been fine.

Here's a list of British people who’ve been given papal honours. All their relevant papal postnominals are there, but not one single one of them is known as “Sir” merely by virtue of their papal honour. There are indeed some “Sir”s there – Sir Tom Farmer, Sir Richard Lawson, Sir Hugh Rossi, Sir James Savile etc. These are people who happen to have a British knighthood. If the papal knighthoods entitled the rest of them to be called “Sir” or “Dame”, why isn’t every single person on the list called “Sir” or “Dame”?

However, I see that Gilbert Levine isn’t the only papal knight who’s been called “Sir”. Commodore Christopher York was made a papal knight, and Bishop Tom Burns writes: “Congratulations and many thanks, Sir Christopher”. Do we take that to mean he’s now generally entitled to be known as such? I don’t believe so. "Commodore Christopher York" gets a lot of google hits, but none of them call him "Sir Christopher York".

Here’s another person, a Nigerian engineer, who claimed (inaccurately, apparently) to have received a papal knighthood and thus called himself “Sir”. Does Gilbert Levine want to be associated with questionable and dubious people like this? I don’t think so.

If Benedict wanted to formally amend the orders such that papal knights now get called “Sir”, that would be his prerogative. There would be a formal decree, probably in Latin, and it would be widely available on the internet and elsewhere. But he has hasn’t done so. He just used this title in an informal way in one particular case, and the Vatican in their wisdom decided to repeat the word on their website. It was a mistake, pure and simple.

If, however, I’m wrong and papal knights do get to use “Sir”, then we’ll have to change all our articles on our notable people who are papal knights. Such as these people. We’ll also have to discover what the translation of “Sir” is in various other languages, because that word is English and it would not apply to Italian, German, French papal knights and all the rest. The Vatican would surely have considered this issue in their formal proclamation of “Sir”. But such a proclamation doesn’t exist. Because it doesn’t exist, there’s nothing formal about its use. Hence, Pope Benedict’s use of it is not, and was never intended to be, considered authoritative. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, there is positive evidence that both Pope Benedict XVI and a great number of Catholic sources accord Maestro Levine the title "sir." Your argument rests on your inability to find further references for the claim and your suspicion that the Pope was "not quite on the mark" in referring to Maestro Levine as "sir." In other words, you are employing the logical fallacy known as argument from ignorance when there is ample evidence to support the contrary. MidnightMarauder (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I've never denied that some people call him "Sir Gilbert Levine". That's patently obvious, and is what's at the heart of this debate. What I'm arguing is that is not an appropriate title. If I'm wrong on this, I will gladly and instantly acknowledge my error. But there is no evidence that says it's an appropriate title. All there is, is evidence that he's been called this.
A lot of Americans have trouble with foreign titles; the most common one is calling someone called Sir John Brown - "Sir Brown". If the US President referred to a Sir John Brown as "Sir Brown", would that suddenly make it correct? Absolutely not. Just because a lot of people refer to Bob Geldof as "Sir Bob Geldof", does that make it correct? Absolutely not. Just because the Pope referred to Gilbert Levine as "Sir Gilbert Levine", does that make it correct? Absolutely not.
The Pope may have a lot of powers, but he doesn't get to decree that someone's name has changed, without any supporting documentation. I've mentioned the sort of documentation we'd need, up above. And as I said, his use of "Sir" was never meant as a formal decree, promulgation, edict, or anything remotely like that. It was a just a casual, off-hand, and probably jocular reference made during a live conversation, not meant to be taken seriously by anyone. The reporting of the pope's words on the Vatican webite does not constitute the formal documentation we need to accord Mr Levine the title of "Sir", because every word that anyone's ever uttered could be recorded on some website somewhere. I'm not blaming the Pope for having a little joke. Or, he may indeed have thought that the title was correct; but if so, it seems to have come from his own brain rather than on any formal advice from his advisers. But the people, including particularly Levine himself, who have taken him far too literally and now use that title for Levine ought to know better. The above explains why I'll be reverting your change. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I did not make clear earlier is that the cited statement by Pope Benedict XVI was from prepared remarks for video broadcast with Gilbert Levine's concert in Cologne Cathedral, which the Pope knew would be shown throughout Europe. As the Pope (as PageofMusic explained earlier) has sole authority in these matters, it would be incorrect to interpret them as casual or otherwise non-authoritative. The use of "sir" by the other Catholic institutions only speaks to this.
I think my latest edits are a fair compromise. Any note concerning the common usage of the title should not be in the lede (simply because it's the sort of thing one always sees in a footnote) and my version acknowledges the particularity of Levine's situation. MidnightMarauder (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I thank you for that. It's certainly an improvement. I can't say I'm 100% happy about it, but compromise is all about accepting things that one is less than 100% happy about, and while I have very strong views on postnominals and titles, I won't have it said that I'm not flexible and willing to compromise. I've adjusted the positioning of the footnote so that it appears in the References. Also removed "His Holiness" (not appropriate for a general reference to a Pope). Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to this subject of the "Sir" title it is apparant that the user (PageofMusic) is a sockpuppet account of MidnightMarauder as PageofMusic has only ever been used during this debate and that was to support what MidnightMarauder was saying, therefore due to the evident use of sockpuppetry to get his point across, even though other uses had shown evidence to support their claim, MidnightMarauder opinion on this matter is now meaningless. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As per the Wikipedia policy on sockpuppetry, "Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors" and "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets."
So, even if PageofMusic were a sockpuppet, you would be in no position, on the basis of some circumstantial evidence, to shut down the discussion. And on the merits of your edit, you are in no position, on the absolutely uncited basis of your friend's father's say so, to overturn the consensus on this discussion, especially when, just three months ago, the Archdiocese of Chicago referred to "Sir Gilbert Levine" here and here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MidnightMarauder (talk • contribs) 02:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus? I don't see it above.
There are two sources that can't be used when deciding whether a title is "valid" or not, one is the person himself, the second would be the entity conferring the title. The Catholic church would have an interest in people being called "Sir" as a mere result of being enrolled in their society. They are WP:BIASed.
Disclosure: I am Catholic. My wife's ancestor was enrolled. A great worker and very deserving. But he was never known as "Sir," though! This is an honorary society. It is a nice honor and all that. It is not part of the British nobility system. The "Sir" should be discarded based on "consensus" reached above. Student7 (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For three years, the arrangement on this article was that Sir Gilbert Levine would be referred to as such, with the appropriate informational footnote. To have reverted that agreement without 1) justifying it rigorously in the talk page, and 2) citing any sources whatsoever, shows poor form.
To respond to the substance of your argument, such as it is, the article you link to regarding bias has no bearing on this question. Do you think there's some entity out there that has the authority to determine what honorifics sovereign countries are allowed to bestow on the members of their respective knightly orders? By your logic, the Queen herself is biased because she has an interest in only British nobles being referred to as sir. Look up "sir" in any reputable dictionary. No definition claims that "sir" is an exclusively British term. It seems to me, furthermore, that the above discussion made clear that publicly, this issue isn't even subject to question—not just in Church statements, but also in the media (see this article in the Chicago Tribune for one example among the thousands you could find by googling). Even setting all of that aside, however, it's not Wikipedia's place to determine whether or not Levine is "entitled" to his title or not. Having the "Sir" with a clarifying footnote is the fairest way to represent (not remake!) reality to the readers of this article.
Finally, you're mistaken about the honorary character of the Order of St. Gregory the Great. Unlike membership in the Knights of Malta, membership in that order is bestowed by the gift of the Pope, just as membership in the Order of the British Empire is bestowed by the gift of the Queen. Between that error of yours, the long-standing agreement on this page about how to present the facts, the public consensus on the title, and the Church's repeated use of the title Sir, there's no basis for removing the "Sir," and especially not for doing so unilaterally. JFriedmann (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In response, at the risk of repeating myself:
  • You'll find millions of hits for Sir Bob Geldof, not to mention Sir Charles Barkley. Does Wikipedia simply accept these titles as faits accomplis? Certainly not. We have a responsibility to present accurate information. Just because millions of people call Geldof by a title he has no right to, does not mean that a reputable encyclopedia like this closes its eyes.
  • Why have none of the probably thousands of other Knights of Order of St. Gregory the Great ever been given the title "Sir"? Because such a title simply does not belong to knights of that order, and never has - that's why. The pope calling Mr Levine "Sir Gilbert" means essentially nothing in the absence of any formal documentation that supports the granting of such a title. The Queen herself cannot simply call David Cameron "Lord Cameron" without a proper process being gone through. Same applies to the Pope. Gilbert Levine should have known better than to go along with this absurd folly. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 04:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
JackofOz and Student7, I have to disagree with you. Follow the footnote here in Bob Geldof's article, and you'll see that the reason why "Sir" Bob is not entitled to use that title is that his knighthood is honorary. But as JFriedmann points out, Levine's knighthood isn't honorary! If Levine had received a British knighthood, it would have been honorary, but that's just not how Papal knighthoods work. And as I see it, you two haven't responded at all to the idea that Papal knighthoods aren't honorary at all!
Since you're the one making changes, Student7, it behooves you to offer some evidence beyond an anecdote about your wife's ancestor. We know that it's atypical that a papal knight is regularly called "Sir"—that's what the footnote clarified. Your anecdote doesn't tell us anything beyond that. The leap from "it's unusual" to "it's illegitimate" isn't justified! But in any case, Levine is not the first Papal Knight to be called "Sir": for the most famous example, see Christoph Willibald Gluck, who became "von Gluck" after being made a Knight of the Golden Spur, which is certainly no different from Levine's rank, for these purposes.
And JackofOz, you're making a category mistake in your second point. The Queen can't call David Cameron "Lord Cameron" because Lord would indicate the substance of his title; to call him "Lord" would be to suggest that he is a member of the peerage. But "Sir" isn't the substance of Levine's title, it's just the customary way of addressing him, in recognition of his title (and it really is customary). David Cameron's case is analogous to Bob Geldof's, where "Sir" would actually indicate something different about his rank. Levine's is analogous to neither.
And what kind of "formal documentation" are you looking for anyway? A published statement about Levine's right to be called "Sir" separate from the actual knighthood? Why would that exist? Do you think the Queen has such documents about British knights? You seem to agree that there's a church consensus, going all the way up to the Pope, about calling Levine "Sir" (the reference from the Archdiocese of Chicago in the edits I just made backs this up further). That's all we have for any knight anywhere! I think if you really wanted to insist that Levine can't be called "Sir," even when the whole church establishment (and the media) has deliberately and consistently referred to him as such, you would have to show that Papal knighthoods are honorary. But they aren't, and you haven't really tried to show they are. ScienzaNuova (talk) 04:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've never thought or said the papal knighthood is honorary. But I have argued that it simply does not attract the title "Sir", and never has. It is "the customary way of addressing" knights of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth Realms. It is NOT the customary way of addressing knights from other countries, and never has been. If you can show me something that changes that situation, I'd love to read it. The Pope's statement and his cardinals' humble obeisance to it, do not amount to anything of any moment. If the Pope announced that Barack Obama was now to be known as "Maestro-General Barack Obama", would that amount to the creation of such a title and would anyone take notice of it? Of course not! The Gluck case is not comparable; whatever led to his acquisition of the nobiliary particle "von", it does not support any other papal knights being called "Sir". If it did, please show me a comprehensive list of papal knights who are or have been known as "Sir <name>". -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 05:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The facts are that for most people Sir is used for those holding knighthoods from the UK, and while he does have a KBE, he is not entitled to use the words Sir before his name since he has no nationality from a country member of the Commonwealth. He is Gilbert Levine, not Sir Gilbert. I agree with JackofOz. Karljoos (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No composer?

[edit]

Actually, the whole idea of music theory is to see whether a budding musician can compose music. If so, s/he may have a future with that instrument. A composer is supposed to know all instruments. Thus we have conductor Leonard Bernstein, who is also a composer. Arturo Toscanini did not compose, but recognized and introduced music by composers considered innovative at the time. Still, even adulation to Toscanini was criticized as "puffery." Levine neither composed nor introduced new music. He just "knew the pope." Student7 (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be mistaken about four things: 1) the nature and purpose of music theory, 2) the relationship between conducting and composing (both in general and historically), 3) the character and significance of Levine's career, and 4) the place of your opinions on Wikipedia. I'll discuss these in turn.
1) I'm not sure why you're bringing up music theory here, but since you seem to think it's somehow important to your argument, I should probably explain where you're mistaken. Music theory is, as the article you link to rightly defines it, "the study of how music works." It can be studied for its own sake, as an academic pursuit, removed from performance. It's true that in teaching music theory, especially to students in the earlier stages of the subject, instructors will assign what are called "model compositions," in which the goal is to write a piece in a particular idiom, or employing particular musical devices or forms. Perhaps this is what you were thinking of. But while these might reveal some compositional talent, "the whole idea" of them is to master the theoretical material, not primarily to reveal compositional talent.
Music theory might also elucidate certain higher-level aspects of composition, but in a way analogous to the relationship of literary theory to writing literature, or of art history to painting. Now, just about every composer or performer of music (including conductors) studies at least the fundamentals of music theory. But much more important to composers and performers is what's called "musicianship." This includes, most centrally, ear training and what's called keyboard harmony. These do require knowing the bare minimum of theory (i.e., the major and minor scales, and some rules of harmony), but like composing and performing, musicianship is a separate pursuit from music theory.
2) I suppose you might have meant to suggest that a conductor who didn't compose, or at least promote new music (though these are completely different skills) would somehow be "missing the point" of studying music. But as I've shown above, studying music, and particularly music theory, need not have anything to do with composing or conducting. But to address the relationship between composing and conducting more directly, they're simply entirely distinct. Conducting entails studying a score, understanding its technical, conceptual, and practical nuances, and putting that knowledge into practice. Composing requires "knowing all the instruments," but the basic skill it requires is creative, not analytic and physical. Bernstein was a conductor and a composer, and each activity might have informed the other, but there's no reason why he had to have both gifts. In fact, Bernstein is the rare exception in the modern era.
Let's look at principal conductors Gramophone's top 10 orchestras in the world (the list looks to be from 2008, but I'll use today's conductors), and see how many composers there are:
10. Dresden Staatskapelle: Conductor Laureate Sir Colin Davis is not a composer, nor is previous Chief Conductor Fabio Luisi.
9. Budapest Festival Orchestra: Music Director Iván Fischer is a composer.
8. Los Angeles Philharmonic: Music Director Gustavo Dudamel is not a composer.
7. Cleveland Orchestra: Music Director Franz Welser-Möst is not a composer.
6. Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra: Music Director Mariss Jansons is not a composer.
5. Chicago Symphony Orchestra: Music Director Riccardo Muti is not a composer.
4. London Symphony Orchestra: Music Director Valery Gergiev is not a composer.
3. (The Vienna Philharmonic has no Music Director)
2. Berlin Philharmonic: Music Director Sir Simon Rattle is not a composer.
1. Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra: As stated above, Music Director Mariss Jansons is not a composer, nor is Conductor Emeritus Riccardo Chailly.
So, Iván Fischer is the only composer of the bunch, and I doubt most people think of him as particularly notable in that field. Of other major conductors, I can think of only Esa-Pekka Salonen as someone who has been successful in both fields (though of course, he has not been nearly to the extent that Bernstein was). Of course Pierre Boulez saw success in both fields, but he is not terribly active as a conductor these days, and is again, a rare exception. Lorin Maazel is a composer, though he has not found professional acclaim in that pursuit. I'm sorry to go through all this, but what you've suggested is really quite ludicrous, and it disappoints me to see that someone of as limited music background as yourself has taken on the project of determining what is relevant, coherent, or notable in an article about a musician.
3) You did mention the issue of championing new music. Now, it's true that some conductors have made it a major feature of their careers to perform works by contemporary composers. But this is hardly the only metric of success, or even a particularly important one. It's certainly not the one emphasized by most conductors' Wikipedia articles: the word "premiere" doesn't even appear on the pages for the last two music directors of the Berlin Philharmonic, Sir Simon Rattle and Claudio Abbado. That you suggest that there's some kind of consensus that Toscanini, of all people, was overhyped because he was not a composer only highlights what an absurd position you're taking.
In any case, Levine has been active, perhaps even more active than most, in promoting unfamiliar music. Just looking at the article, he's performed on television several "challenging" works unfamiliar to the broader public, including Bruckner 9, Beethoven Missa Solemnis, Dvorak D Major Mass, as well as works by major contemporary composers, including Penderecki (with whom Levine had a long musical relationship in Krakow), Gorecki, Harbison, and Edward T. Cone.
Furthermore, I suspect anyone seriously concerned with inter-religious reconciliation or with promoting classical music in the public would not just disagree with your statement that Levine is someone who merely "knew the pope," but might actually take some offense. Do a little bit of research on John Paul II's relations with Judaism, and you'll find Levine to have been a central figure in the Pontiff's efforts. Take a look at television programming in the US or in Europe and you'll see that there are very few conductors bringing classical music outside of the concert hall on the same scale as Levine has.
4) This brings me to my last point. You are well-entitled to your opinions that music theory should be training for composition, that a conductor's job is to introduce new music to audiences, etc., etc. But we're dealing here with a reference work, as you well know. So you arguments on these issues have no place. I'm still not sure what everything you've said, both here and in the page history, has to do with including Levine's book in the body of the article or not. You seem to be claiming that Levine isn't himself notable, but also that his memoir isn't notable because it didn't have to do with his music ability.
Well, I don't think there's much more to be said for the former. For the latter, however, what does that matter at all? The book is self-evidently a major part of Levine's "Media Coverage," since it was published by the 12th largest publishing house in the world, and for the very reason that Levine is a conductor, not a writer, by trade. Doesn't it look strange to you to have a bibliography with one book in it? Don't you think bibliographies are appropriate for someone for whom writing is part of his job? And if you read the book, you'll see that it has rather detailed descriptions of the music he performed, and the concerts he conducted. So even if your strange notion that your conceptions of what makes a notable conductor, and notable aspects of a conductor's life, were relevant, Levine's book would absolutely merit at least the simple, brief discussion it received previously.
I do apologize for the lengthy reply, but this is the second time you've unilaterally imposed a change to this article based on factually incorrect and manifestly subjective bases. You've clearly done very valuable work for Wikipedia, so please show the same care here that you would demonstrate elsewhere on this site. ScienzaNuova (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is (or was) Gilbert Levine in anybody's (Gramophone's?) "top n" conductors? Student7 (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Gilbert Levine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gilbert Levine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gilbert Levine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gilbert Levine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilbert_Levine&oldid=1203607344"