Placido Domingo ‘had no power to hire or fire’

Placido Domingo ‘had no power to hire or fire’


norman lebrecht

September 06, 2019

The opera administrator Christina Scheppelmann, Domingo’s deputy head at Washington National Opera for nine years, has told a Spanish magazine that neither of them had casting control.

‘Placido never told me “hire this one, not that one”. His suggestions were always argued over by the team. If we liked a singer that person was hired. Placido or I may not have liked it, but I never saw him say anything against a woman because she had rejected him.’

Scheppelmann, former director of the Liceu in Barcelona, is now in charge at Seattle Opera. She is one of few women in the US to speak up for Domingo.

photo: Barcelona Classica



  • Gabriela says:

    “I never saw him say anything against a woman because she had rejected him”

    The implication here is damning … as though it was a known fact in that circle that he came on to women and they rejected him.

    • david hilton says:

      And why exactly is that “damning”? “Coming on to women” is what (straight) men do. Are we not to presume that Mrs. Simon Rattle became his wife because at some point he came on to her, a very famous soprano (or vice versa)? Did Walter Berry not ‘come on to’ Christa Ludwig? Or Richard Bonynge and Joan Sutherland? Anna Netrebko and her tenor husband clearly found a way for one of them to come on to the other. These things don’t happen by magic. This is how people form relationships. Including many people who are already married to someone else. So here’s a news flash for you: there has not previously been thought anything wrong — and certainly not illegal — with a man, even a famous man, asking. Unless he has the power to suspend employment (the power to offer employment is totally different), which this article makes clear Mr. Domingo did not have.

      • sam says:

        Quid pro quo harassment occurs in the workplace when a manager or other authority figure offers or merely hints that he or she will give the employee something (a raise or a promotion) in return for that employee’s satisfaction of a sexual demand.

        • david hilton says:

          Absolutely correct. But the employee/employer relationship must exist. Until it does, you’re entitled to offer a non-employee anything in your gift in exchange for whatever you wish. That’s why the ‘casting couch’ flourishes in Hollywood and many other places. It’s entirely reprehensible behaviour, but it’s not sexual harassment, which is what Mr Domingo is being accused of.

      • Sue Sonata Form says:

        No, not Bonynge with Sutherland. Not that, no. I’ve never understood that relationship as Bonynge wasn’t interested in women.

        • John Pickford says:

          Please, let’s keep the conversation dignified. Richard Bonynge is a wonderful musician, conductor, musical coach, educator and from the results of his discography (which is still growing) work horse. He was a devoted spouse, father and grandfather. He didn’t have to be interested “in women” as he was only interested in one, for 56 years, his wife. Is that all any man can be in the arts world, either homosexual or try to bed every woman they meet? Is it impossible for someone to be a talented musician and have a loving relationship with a women to build mutual careers? Yes, and Joan Sutherland and Richard Bonynge were that and more. Some people in the arts worked and he most certainly did and still does.

      • Sue Sonata Form says:

        Carlos Kleiber had a fling with Lucia Popp (she was then married to a pianist and he to Stanka Brezovar). He had dozens of such affairs and when his wife predeceased him he collapsed into a heap from which he did not recover.

        Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

      • Linda says:

        If you read both AP stories you’d see that what these women are accusing Domingo of doing is miles away from just coming on to them. If you can’t see the difference between expressing your romantic interest and sexual harassment/abuse, then you are a very scary person.

      • V.Lind says:

        There is a huge difference between “coming on” — which in adult groups means perhaps asking a woman for a drink after singling her out on conversation –and the sort of thing Domingo is being accused of.

        I turned down my ex once or twice when he asked me (nicely) to go for a drink, because I did not think I was interested in getting to know him any better than as a friend of friends, which is how we met. But he rather persisted, so I agreed to have lunch with him one day, seeing no harm in it, and found his company a lot more appealing than I had anticipated. And etc.

        That is how adults did it when I was still on the scene.

      • AJ says:

        read the AP articles. Referring to it as “asking” if fresh.

      • Mario says:

        It´s been a loooong time since either men or women can come on to the other. And coming on is one thing. Harassing, insisting up to 6 times (shall we? No shall we? no…etc), touching bare breasts….is not “coming on”.

      • Olassus says:

        … and to the first Mrs. Rattle too, soprano Elise Ross, whom he conducted in Wozzeck at Los Angeles Opera. (Wife No. 3 is actually a famous mezzo.)

        Yusif Eyvazov coming on to Anna Netrebko at Strega after Manon Lescaut rehearsals in Rome and then tweeting about how he was now engaged to be married is recent legend.

        But you can be sure Richard Bonynge never “came on” to Joan Sutherland! And Walter Berry, besides coming on to Christa Ludwig, beat her up.

      • Countervail says:

        I guess if by “coming on” to someone, you mean grabbing her bare breast under her costume with no previous romantic encouragement just as you were about to go on stage, sure. Who hasn’t done that to a woman and married her later because it was such a highlight of their courtship.

        Get some help man. Cause it doesn’t sound like you know appropriate boundaries.

    • Sue Sonata Form says:

      The comments of a truly prudish individual.

  • sam says:

    “I never saw him say anything against a woman because she had rejected him”

    No, but did he recommend someone because she slept with him.

    It’s called quid pro quo. It is at the very heart of sexual discrimination.

    That he was not the sole decider is irrelevant. He had a say. And his say carried weight.

    Scheppelmann’s testimony is very damning. Not only against Domingo, but against herself.

    She admits personal knowledge, personal observation, and she admits acceptance.

    • Tiredofitall says:

      Please read the entire article before commenting on one isolated reference. It is an intelligent interview.

      • Sue Sonata Form says:

        You are wasting your time. For lots of liberals these men are proxies for Donald Trump. You seldom heard about any of this before Trump’s election. It’s about revenge, identity politics and reputational destruction. We live in frightening times.

        • Anon says:

          Ooh yes, terrifying. I’m literally quaking in my boots at the thought of identity politics, which could come and haul me out of my house any day and deport me. And reputational destruction is FAR scarier than, you know, the actual destruction that left 70,000 people needing immediate lifesaving help in the Bahamas.

  • Give me a break says:

    This is such BS. As someone who worked with a leading casting agency at the time of Scheppelmann’s work in DC, I can confirm that Placido had full right of refusal on any and all casting. Basically, the word from her office was consistently “we can make this offer only once Placido signs off”. Also, does she really think the public is so dumb to believe Placido would say out loud why he was vetoing or promoting someone? Please…

    • Yes Addison says:

      Not just at WNO.

      A retired soprano gave an interview to Opera News several years ago for one of its “Reunion” features. She had stepped into a notoriously demanding role in a Met production with Domingo during the Joseph Volpe/James Levine years. (I should add that she had been wonderful in said role.) She talked about the circumstances that had led to her singing in this production, as the original soprano had had an acrimonious break with the Met, and the production needed a leading lady. She commented that when she was called by Jonathan Friend to step in, he emphasized that Plácido had given his okay to her participation.

      That has nothing to do with the harassment allegations. It’s just to illustrate that there is too much on the record for Domingo’s apologists and flacks now to make a case that he was just some ordinary working Joe filling his own role like any other singer. He had considerable casting influence. So did Luciano “One mountain on the stage is enough!” Pavarotti, who sang opposite slender, attractive sopranos whenever it was possible.

      • Enquiring MInd says:

        Imagine that an orchestra was playing sinfonia concertante for violin and viola. The conductor wants the violist replaced. Would it be so strange for the new violist, when contacted, to be told that the other soloist, the violinist was “ok with her participation” mean replacement?

        • M2N2K says:

          Not only that, but if there is no instance when PD disagreed with other well-qualified musicians saying that it was not okay for someone to perform with him, then the example of his being okay does not mean anything negative about him – possibly just the opposite.

  • Caravaggio says:

    Another hollow careerist beholden to planet Domingo and his orbit. To be sure, she may not be stupid but biased, self-interested and disingenuous she may well be.

    • Sue Sonata Form says:

      Bit like madam Clinton, I’m guessing.

      • Laurence says:

        Wow! You managed to bring in an irrelevant swipe at Hillary! So Domingo is innocent because of… Benghazi? You should at least TRY to make your politics less transparent. This is about Domingo, not Trump, no matter how many times you beat the drum for your Trump/proxy theory. As Dylan sang long ago, “Something is happening here, and you don’t know what it is, do you, [Ms.] Jones?”

        • Mariclar says:

          We all know exactly what’s going on here, which is that a 78 year old man with a glorious career is being demonized by a bunch of women for alleged behavior that took place as long as 40 years ago.

          Is it well known that Domingo had, and may still have, a super-charged libido. It’s also known that droves of women would follow him around and invite him to pick them as sex partners.

          How many
          of those women were turned down by him, and how many of them, 40 years later, are using this marvelous opportunity to jump on the #MeToo bandwagon to finally get even after all these years?

          I give little to no credence to these frustrated women. With so many of them offering themselves to him, does any rational person think that he had to out of his way to repeatedly harass anyone who wasn’t willing? Oh, please…

          BTW, did all of you who are now painting Domingo as a monster read the recent piece in The New York Times about Justice Kavanaugh’s “traumatized” accuser, who only came forward with her tale of alleged assault because she wanted to keep him off the High Court because he’s anti-abortion? Does any rational individual think that all of these rabid females, who claim to be still having nightmares 4 decades later because someone groped them — if, in fact, it actually happened — don’t have agendas of their own, even if it’s simple revenge for not being selected for a role?

          Maybe they just weren’t good enough. And 40 years later, how is anyone supposed to determine whether they were or not? But in the middle of #MeToo hysteria, it’s pathetically easy to scream “harassment.”

          BTW…where’s their proof, and why are so many of them refusing to identify themselves? If they’re so outraged about what happened, why don’t the actually come forward and accuse their alleged harasser to his face?

      • V.Lind says:

        Is that Clinton as in “You seldom heard about any of this before Trump’s election”?

    • Competency says:

      Happens to be spot on in this case. She was a number cruncher before Domingo airlifted her into a job at WNO she was totally unqualified for — all because she spoke fluent Spanish.

    • Mr. Knowitall says:

      Caravaggio, have you considered proposing to Sue Sonata Form? It’s a match made in heaven! Step one: grab her bare breast under her blouse.

  • Lynne says:

    It’s funny how women are liars until they say something you like.

  • sam says:

    Scheppelmann’s defense of Domingo is utterly disingenuous.

    No single person unilaterally decides casting, there is always someone else involved in the approval process, but we all know where the authority and influence reside.

    If some deputy arts administrator votes no too many times against Barenboim (oh to take a random example), we all know who’s contract will be renewed and whose won’t, and who has the ears of the Board and who doesn’t.

    Get real!

    • V.Lind says:

      In no orchestra I am aware of does the hiring/firing rest with a single source, nor does it ever exclude the artistic director, conductor, music director, whoever is the principal artist. The senior artistic staff do the heavy lifting — moving on programming, seeking guests, checking availability, who’s touring in the area, etc. But the head honcho still will be able to say “Not on any stage of mine.” Or, “I know there are better sopranos but this one really has something…”

      And her reckoning that his sexual results played no part strongly suggests that she knew there were sexual results.

    • Novagerio says:

      Well said Sam!

  • Anon says:

    Welcome to the Spanish press. They are generally smart, savvy, there is a whole roster of Spanish journalists dedicated to writing about classical music, and they are far more united and collaborative than the US press. They will defend Domingo.

    Perhaps they will do exactly what the AP is doing but in reverse – digging up and publishing (all verifiable, of course, so please no one start harping on the AP’s ability to verify and defend what they publish AGAIN!) whatever they can uncover to defend Domingo. They have every right to do this. After all, they are just “reporting”, right?

    The AP is being a bully. The US is already famous for that. Spanish press may not have their resources or their magnitude, and they may not win this war, but they will defend their native son. US journalism will take a hit and I guarantee that many Europeans will snicker at the mention of “Me Too” from this day forward.

    !Adelante, compañeros!

    • Laurence says:

      The Spanish press is “smart and savvy”, while the AP are just mean old bullies? Please snicker away, I suspect it’s what you do best. Let others deal seriously with serious issues.

    • Anon says:

      Small difference is that AP is publishing multiple allegations of things actually happening, whereas the Spanish press is publishing a bunch of people saying “well, I never saw anything happen” and “well, I can’t imagine that happening” etc. If you think those two are equivalent…

      I’ve never seen a crime being committed in my home town. Does that mean the crime rate is zero?

      • david hilton says:

        You seem not to have read the AP’s latest story. It actually is, predominantly, a story of something NOT happening, or at least not being divulged — merely alleged — by the AP. Despite the takeaway headline of “AP REPORTS 11 MORE WOMEN”, the story only provides the merest sketch of what 3 of these women (or possibly men) have alleged and only one of them is a serious complaint; but no detail whatsoever is provided as to the remaining alleged 8 accusers who “have come forward” since the publication of the first story. What are their allegations? what, if anything, happened to them, and how does that concern Domingo. It is the height of irresponsible journalism to say ‘we know about 8 women who “came forward” and made some kind of allegation, but we’re not telling you what it is.’

        Remember that 2 of the 3 women for whom the AP can be bothered even to report the allegations have made these earth-shaking allegations: one claims that she believed that Domingo had the intent to kiss her on her lips, so she turned her head, resulting in him kissing her on the cheek. Well, he obviously should be fired because of that! The other woman claims that Domingo caused her to back up, as he touched her hand and whispered in her ear. Yes, that’s the extent of it. Finally, Angela Wilson’s story of an unwanted touching of her in a sexual manner is of course serious and has to investigated. But the AP undermines the seriousness of its purposes by, in an effort to establish a pattern,
        linking Ms Wilson’s serious allegation to 8 phantom complaints that the AP alone claims to know about but can’t be bothered to share with the public.

        • V.Lind says:

          You are among those who seem to think AP is in the business of “taking down” Domingo. If that were the case, they would include chapter and verse of every allegation, however repetitive. If you understood how to read reasoned reporting you would follow that this story does all it has to. But it is very clear that a lot of people here have no comprehension of how reporting works. Too many years of reading online rather than reading the great newspapers on a daily basis all their lives.

  • M2N2K says:

    The question that I am interested in being answered by investigators is whether or not PD ever actually used whatever power he had to deny employment to those who said no or offered employment to those who said yes solely or primarily because of those yeses or nos. Answering this question may not be easy but it should not be impossible.

  • Victor Trahan says:

    Enough enough already !!! SD needs to put a temporary embargo on Domingo and gender issues. The jury will be out for a long time on this one. The focus should be on music.

    • V.Lind says:

      You refer to “gender issues,” meaning multiple — MULTIPLE — accusations of sexual misconduct of one kind or another.

      A “temporary embargo?” The reason the floodgates have opened on this stuff in the past few years is that there has been a PERMANENT embargo on rocking men’s boats FOREVER. And, Mate, it is OVER. The jury can hang where it likes, given your apparent belief that there may be two sides to sexual abuse (the issue — there may be two sides to specific cases). But these stories have cried out to be aired for decades if not centuries, and if men dont like hearing about it, get them to clean up their ****ing acts.

      • david hilton says:

        You seem to forget that for nearly half of the alleged accusers of Mr Domingo we still have not even heard ONE side of the issue, let alone two. For at least 8 of the most recent “11 accusers” of Mr Domingo neither the AP nor any other press outlet has published even a hint of what, if anything, Mr Domingo is accused of having done to these women. Or men. We don’t know a thing about who these accusers are or about what they have accused Mr Domingo of having done to them. But those wielding the pitchforks at the head of the baying mob are happy to chant about “20 accusers” far, far before we have heard both sides of the story. As I say, for nearly have of the alleged accusers the AP still has not given us even one side of the story, let alone both sides. Would suspending judgment for just a few days/weeks really be asking too much?

        • V.Lind says:

          How many more accusations do you require before you are satisfied? Look at the number of people here who have cited their experience of working in companies with PD and knowing about his activities. This is a case of workplace harassment, not criminality. Your evidence standard is fantastical.

          • david hilton says:

            I honestly don’t understand. How could my evidence standard be “fantastical”? It is the lowest possible standard imaginable: all that I ask the AP to tell us about the 8 phantom “accusers” is this: what did they accuse Domingo of doing? We don’t need their names. But we do need to know that they have actually accused Mr Domingo of something. The AP refers to 11 ‘accusers’ who have come forward, but only tells us about 3 of them. You ask me “how many more accusations do you require”? All I require is actual accusations! Not headlines that simply pick a number out of the air — 11 in this case — and then fail to back up their claim by telling us ANYTHING about 8 of these people. How can we even refer to them as ‘accusers’ if no accusations have yet surfaced from them?

          • V.Lind says:

            If you see a movie about a Nazi concentration camp, do you deny it credibility because it does not document EVERY atrocity that happened within it? Do you not understand the construction of a report without having every single instance spelled out for you in words of one syllable? You are an adult, and supposed to be able to follow a theme.

            Enough instances of the accusations against Domingo are included to make the nature of the story clear. Despite what you and some of your ilk appear to be accusing, the AP is NOT in the business of trying and convicting Domingo or anyone else. It is in the business, here in THESE stories, of bringing to public attention the accusations that are making the rounds, and the context.

            I am and always have been a great admirer of Domingo I am also a lifelong reader and student of literature, so as well as experience, I have formal training in how to follow a story, fiction or non-. And I am a lifelong journalist.

            These stories introduced me to something I was horrified and desperately sorry to hear, but they have, along with a lot of the response to them, convinced me that there is evidence of behaviour I would personally have found reprehensible, though I do not equate him with the likes of Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein or Roger Ailes.

            What they ARE like is the situation in which far too many women find themselves, in all walks of life. And the many protests of injured innocence coming here from mostly male voices is the signal that too many men just do not get it, so we can expect it to continue. They demand “proof” and “witnesses” and legal evidence for things that normally take place in private circumstances. As some of us keep reminding them, it is not all about illegality — it is about workplace harassment, and the eternal making of women’s lives uncomfortable.

            Your conscience must be very, very clear if you cannot understand any of this and keep insisting on chapter and verse and in blaming a supremely talented and professional reporter, not only in the content of her stories but the content of many of the threads on this site featuring people who have worked with Domingo and know facts of his offstage practices. THEY CAN’T ALL BE LYING.

            But a lot of you can be in denial, for whatever reason — you don’t want to believe it (nor do I) or you don’t think such things matter. If the latter, you are beyond reason and certainly beyond consideration.

          • Marel says:

            “Supremely talented and professional reporter”. That is an extraordinary claim you are making. You must have information the rest of us do not, in order to be defending her this way.
            Every case such as this is individual and must not be compared with any others, despite similarities.
            The fact that the US media and several opera companies have already condemned Mr. Domingo goes against all that we stand for in this country.
            I have worked as a victims’ advocate for the past 20 years. I am an attorney, and yes, a woman.
            It goes beyond saying that making premature and uninformed statements result in irresponsible conclusions.
            For the record, I am neither an opera fan or follower of Domingo. However, due process is a right allowed to everyone in America.

          • V.Lind says:

            THIS IS NOT A LEGAL CASE. What is the “process” for complaining about problems in the workplace? Some people have chosen to make their complaints public. I think that is protected in the United States by your First Amendment. Which also allows the reporter and her organisation to protect their sources — they must know who they are in order to test their veracity, but the public has no particular right to know If Mr Domingo cares to pursue this in any way, HE would have the right to meet his accusers.

          • V.Lind says:

            Because studies of Nazi concentration camps do not contain the history of what happened to EVERY person who went through their gates, do you reject their existence? Surely you do not need to be led by the hand, chapter and verse, with things itemised in words of one syllable, to follow a story?

            Stop pretending. If you are actually rejecting the claims being made through these stories, then you either do not want to believe them — and, God knows, as a lifelong admirer of the man neither do I — or you do not think that what is being said matters.

            If you demand legalistic “proof” for claims that involve events rarely witnessed (yet many people here who say they are in a position to know say that they are true) when no-one is claiming a crime has been committed, you are being obstructive. This is workplace harassment.

            And it is something women in all walks of life face constantly. The offenders are not all Weinsteins and Epsteins and Aileses. But they are men who do not care if women are made uncomfortable if it in some way accommodates their own vanity.

            Domingo appears to have fallen into that pattern. As I said, I did not want to believe it, but my reading of the AP stories and the comments here by people who have worked with him or with others in a position to know has made me believe. They can’t all be lying. There is no vendetta — this is a loved figure.

            Denial may seem a comfortable posture, but it must niggle an intelligent conscience.

  • Jason S. says:

    It is a ludicrous claim from Ms. Scheppelmann that Domingo didn’t have an enormous influence on casting and artistic matters at the Washington Opera. I don’t think Domingo would have accepted the position without it.
    Sam thing for the L.A. Opera. Because Domingo is such a revered and beloved singer, with much clout and standing in the opera world, it seems many don’t take the sexual harassment claims seriously.

  • Alex Klein says:

    It seems obvious that Domingo is being singled out because it is famous. At this point, to my knowledge no one has actually come out and said he committed a crime of Weistein’s or Epstein’s level. There is a well-supported rumor going around that – God forbid – Domingo has been sexually active during his career, and sought such bliss with co-workers. If so, the 10 or 20 accusations, visible or not, are just the tipo of the iceberg, as we can only hope his sexual prowess went much beyond that during his long lifetime. As much as conservatives might want to say otherwise, sex is not a crime. What Weinstein and Epstein did IS a crime. To judge Doming, fire him, smear him, is a testament against our collective intelligence. There is no crime in asking. And as for refusals or consequences thereof, let’s remember that we humans discriminate on the basis of everything, consciously or sub. It may be a haircut, a color scheme, a presence or lack of body fat, it may remind us of something bad in our lives which we don’t even remember what it is, but…”something about so and so” makes us feel uneasy, and we judge. Therefore, smearing Domingo for being, gosh, a human male, won’t help anyone, and will only degrade our dialogue. We all need to evolve, and we won’t do that if we cling to a sexless interpretation of reality.

    • V.Lind says:

      Oh, grow up. It is not all about crime. (And harassment is a crime). It is about abuse, of power, of emotion, or proximity. There are ways to conduct male-female relationships and by an awful lot of accounts, Domingo went past them and a lot of people knew about it. He got away with it because of who he is. And he is being defended her for the most spurious reasons I have ever heard, including an attempt to trash the AP by a lot of idiots who know nothing about reporting and by someone who would claim e knows a lot about it and is feebly trying to make a case against them despite two solid pieces of journalism.

      You all know he did this. Your reactions to it, in many cases, make you as bad as he is and worse.

    • Suzy says:

      If true, grabbing someone’s breast IS a crime. That’s really not OK, even from a celebrity.

  • Eric says:

    Of course Mr Domingo has influence over casting of operas he sings in or conducts.
    If you think his Violeta’s or Mimi’s or Desdemona’s don’t have his seal of approval in advance,
    think again.

  • Tamino says:

    The internet has brought us back the Middle Ages with it’s practice of pillorying, public shaming. Is the next step back in our retardation as a society, after peak enlightenment, to public stoning? “Burn the witch!”

    It appears PD hasn’t done anything, that under the law is a criminal offense or misdemeanor.
    So what is going on? It seems clear he is a womanizer and Casanova on the neurotic level, and was throwing himself on almost anything that was female.
    Annoying, causing feelings of discomfort to many. Yes. (and feelings of enchantment and being flattered in many others)
    But that’s just life.
    You tell him, NO.
    End of story, apparently.

    Men approach women more actively than the other way around.
    Isn’t that natural? Scientifically even layed out in its biochemical and neurological detail.
    It’s so fundamental, one is wondering if there is a world wide conspiracy to shake the very foundation of our bonding and family creation habits.
    Is the goal to create the most insecure, lonesome, singled out individual?
    The one who then is easiest to manipulate, to rule, to consume whatever shit is advertised to him?
    Sure killing the families and partnerships will succeed in giving corporations and plutocrats better options to rule the divided people. Divide and conquer, soon coming to an individual relationship next to you… I mean… smart phones are already doing that… have you been lately to a playground and watched the parents there? All on their “smart” phones, heads down… zombies…

    What am I missing?
    Where are the witnesses for his criminal offenses?
    Moral shaming doesn’t justify killing someone professionally. THAT should actually constitute a criminal offense.

    • V.Lind says:

      “So what is going on? It seems clear he is a womanizer and Casanova on the neurotic level, and was throwing himself on almost anything that was female.
      Annoying, causing feelings of discomfort to many. Yes.”

      It is in WORKPLACES. Even women are entitled not to have to be annoyed, or discomforted by someone acting on the neurotic level every time they turn up for work — and often after they go home.

      You talk about “The one who then is easiest to manipulate, to rule, to consume whatever shit is advertised to him?” That, in the case of women in Domingo’s sights, is THEM, not him.

      God, I don’t believe men.

      • Tamino says:

        I agree with you.
        But it should also mean, that women should not have the opportunity to corrupt men, using them for their objectified wishes, by approaching them and giving them ‚favors‘ in order to gain some advantages?
        I see a dilemma. At least, as long as both, men and women, in reality, too often are not acting ethically on the higher levels.
        The dilemma eventually rests on two pillars: physical strength and power. Whoever has more of these needs to be aware and use it ethically responsibly.
        Both men and women have many powers. Before we go into specific powers, like being an opera director with executive casting authority.

  • Albert says:

    Someone should ask Christina about Maestro Phillipe Auguin and Donald Runnicles who she had at Washington and San Francisco respectively. All in the same boat as Domingo

  • Nick2 says:

    The implication from this lady’s comment is that PD’s sexual harassment was confined to singers. It was not. I have in an earlier thread detailed one such event involving a member of the administrative staff of an opera company. I could add two others both well known to me and in whom both confided their disgust.

  • Cantantelirico says:

    Shame on her!!

  • Countervail says:

    I worked at Washington Opera before Ms. Scheppelmann at the start of Mr. Domingo’s tenure and we definitely hired non-U.S. female singers that no one had heard of before or since as covers and for extra shows that caused all sorts of headache and extra cost for visas, rehearsals, and travel. They most certainly were not worth all the money effort and I have doubts that a “team” decided on these secondary casts. We all knew he was having affairs. I didn’t know of the more creepy allegations against him. But I am certain his favoritism led to engagements for some beyond their talent and most likely closed off opportunities for others who weren’t as attentive.

  • ABSTRACT says:

    “but I never saw him say anything against a woman because she had rejected him.’ This statement is vague; did Ms. Scheppelman see him get rejected?

  • Pablo Meléndez-Haddad says:

    Please read the whole article in El Periódico and not snippets from it that you are given here…

  • Roxana says:


  • Vil says:

    She knows she’s lying. Opera houses would do anything he asked just to have him there. Even Renata Scotto who doesn’t have half of his influence is known to force companies to hire certain singers. That’s how Suzanne got Violeta at FGO.
    Everyone knows what goes on. Get real.

  • MWnyc says:

    Well, no, he’s not going to tell Scheppelmann not to hire some singer because she rejected him, is he?
    He’d come up with some other reason.
    Even Harvey Weinstein, as brazen a man as ever there was, didn’t tell other directors and studios not to hire certain actresses because they wouldn’t put out.
    He simply spread the word that they were “difficult to work with.”