« Ten things you may not know about “The Mahler Project” | Main | LINKS: One recital, four reviews »

January 11, 2012



This is precisely my point - he DIDN'T HAVE TO ANSWER the question and it would have been much more decent of him if he didn't. There may be multiple sides as to WHY certain things happened but i am not talking about that. There is only ONE set of facts when it comes to WHAT actually happened and that is the only thing i am talking about here. It should really go without saying that i would have never made these comments if i did not know FIRSTHAND and with absolute certainty what those facts are.

Bob Thomas

Mark, I think this is a pretty harsh comment, especially since Andrew didn’t have to answer my question. I’m sure the way that the situation unfolded wasn’t pleasant for either party but one thing I’ve learned throughout my business life is that there are usually two — and often times multiple — sides to any story like this, especially one that is more than a decade old.


Since he clearly did not want to tell the truth about the real reason for his departure from the leading local orchestra, it would have been much more decent of him to refrain from any comment rather than invent a silly story that implies an outright lie about this unpleasant episode.

The comments to this entry are closed.