>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> from east ukraine to the middle east to the south china sea, serious foreign policy challenges to set the white

house. the situation is an argument stability unseen since the 1970's. washingtonnow from is jay solomon who covers foreign affairs and national security and carol lee. i am pleased to have the both of them. welcome. >> thank you for having us. >> tell me where did the idea come from that you simply see a lot of dots that were connected and you said wait a minute, what is going on? after looking at the dots, tell us what you mean about an arc of instability. was think for me i traveling a lot with secretary kerry over the past few months. every week, there was another crisis. ukraine, iraq, syria, the middle east. it is a continued crises and trying to figure out what is the

unifying theme. it was difficult. i think what struck me was the sense we do have a time where the u.s. is kind of pulling back. a lot of voters wanted that, they wanted to be left engaged. at the same time, there are all these challengers coming whether it is the russians, the chinese, the iranians. why is all of this happening at the same time and what is the unifying factor? to me, it was this moment in time where we are pulling back at least for the time being militarily. all of these other players are coming into this vacuum, or this area of instability and that is why it seems like it is such a chaotic time. it is a very scary time when you see what is going on in iraq and syria and the ukraine right now. >> the question is -- the white

house recognize this? strategy to meet the challenge of this arc of instability? >> i say i'm your first point -- yes, they do recognize this. it is something they are increasingly concerned about. i am also disappointed about given the fact that the president wanted to pursue a proactive foreign-policy agenda on issues like middle east peace and getting a deal with iran over its nuclear program. they are forced to react to events. he is taking what is what he hopes to be a very active second term and now it is a proactive -- reactive second term. as far as whether or not he has a strategy to deal with it, i think that is what all of these events happening at one particular time has reignited the debate over the obama foreign-policy doctrine.

you saw the president tried to explain that at west point in may. all of a sudden, they were planning -- the white house is planning to go on with his campaign to play out the details of the president for policy and all of these events happened one after another. russia continue to be aggressive, the middle east and syria -- the war continued. the u.s. is going back into iraq. you are seeing what is happening in the middle east over the past week. now, the white house is trying to manage all of these things while still adhering to the presidents foreign-policy doctrine which is that the u.s. will take a multilateral toroach and does not -- try not get as involved as it could militarily. that is raise a whole host of questions whether -- how much of this is the president doing? attritionvarious u.s. and allies that are nervous about the way he approaches

foreign policy and how much of this would've happened anyway? it is a result for having policies that came before he took office. jay,n you make the case, as carol was talking about, that presidential policies, his decision in syria not try to arm the moderates, the decision to draw a red line and you have agreement with russia and with hassad which a lot of people say it worked out to be a good thing. can you make the point that it was the reading of the president and the way he saw the world was the stimulus to people to be more aggressive? >> i think there is definitely some truth to that. he had these redlines in syria last summer and said repeatedly ssad gases people, we would react and we would europe or some military action last summer and it did not happen. i talked to a number of our allies in the gulf, even over in

asia, they said the chinese made a major grab on some of these islands that are being disputed. would we react, could we react? do something to challenge our allies, would we react? they look at the negotiations on the uranian's on the nuclear issue, is this a sign of u.s. engagement or u.s. pulling out? -- the examples and some of the rhetoric, has made allies nervous. i think some of the positions the president took are totally understandable. i think it is debatable how much the impact the u.s. could've had in syria or if you wanted to be sucked into that conflict. saying these redlines and not acting has definitely been seen by our allies and probably our nemesis in the sense that he is not -- he might not be there. he might not live up to what he

is saying. >> you covered the secretary of state and carol covers the president. do they see eye to eye or is john kerry want to engage in more bold foreign-policy and use of american force? >> i think the sense i got is that john kerry is more about that. he was talking about a much more aggressive army and supporting of the opposition. when thehat speech u.s. look like it was going to take action in syria and got left out on a limb. that is the sense i get. on iraq, too, he probably seem o be much more willing to take action that did not happen. i think that is a fair analysis that kerry is more active than president obama. >> i think that is right.

they see it as the president campaigning on a certain foreign-policy strategy that was widely supported among american public. he is sticking to that for better or worse. we have seen for the worse -- is foreign policy standing among the american public has been at its lowest since it is been since his residency -- presidency. part of the frustration on the side of the white house is that he is doing exactly what he said he would do. yet, that doesn't seem to be exactly what people want. we have talked to european diplomats who say they thought they wanted what obama is doing and now they are feeling a little like he is taking it too far. perhaps he is overcorrected for what he perceived as president bush's foreign-policy mistakes. >> that is exactly what the president did bad.

john kerry goes to yale and hees a speech in which basically said we have to be careful, we didn't swing too far to the other side following what president bush had done and get into a kind of extreme isolation. >> that is right. that is the big question and i think that right now what is happening is that individually any of these crises could be managed by the white house in a way that maybe would not raise those questions. when you have this number of very high stakes with huge , it reallys events puts the pressure on the white house to explain and how they are not over correcting to this. that is what john kerry said about swinging the other way. how they are going to manage it all because one of the criticisms is that maybe these things would've happened anyway but when you take something like the presidents decision to set a

redline in syria and then you walk up to the redline and at the last-minute drawback -- i have trouble with the president since he came into office and covered him and i have never seen a map to go overseas and this away and repeatedly reassure allies that are usually on our side. he is going to have our back. it is something it were to happen. he had to do it in europe for a number of times this year and in asia. he's going to continue to have to do that if he keeps -- if these types of things keep taking place and he is perceived as not necessarily being as aggressive as the situation calls for which is what some of his allies are saying at this point. >> i spoke to some leaders in the gulf and they said to me -- we think we know where the president stands and we think he has our back but we are not sure. i said, he made a speech at west point and was clear in terms of how the united states will stand

where he thinks it is important and interest of national security. they say, yes, to me. but, it is one thing this make us beach, and then another thing to look in the eye of us and tell us. >> i have trouble with the president this year where he had to go somewhere and look them in the eye and try to convince them that he will be there. take saudi arabia for instance, they are very nervous about the u.s.'s engagement with iran. he had an engagement and then had to stop and sit face-to-face and say i will be there and i am going to do x, y, and z. he is repeatedly having to do that. i think part of the frustration if you talk to people on the white house is that the president gives a lot of speeches but aside for syria which i think turned out to be a pretty consequential decision in terms of perception of this president and the united states,

besides that, they have done everything they say they will do. they still continue to battle this perception. perception is something, particularly when you're dealing with foreign policy and the different actors. >> i think the arab leaders have been particularly interesting in terms of managing allies because there is a string of decisions going back to the arab spring in late 2010 and 2011 that really kind of made air of leaders nervous. this was a close ally and we kind of showed him the door and everybody was saying take him if you kick him out, it would much more unstable. then, the iran negotiations, which i think people were supportive of, they were happening in secret behind the israelishe saudis and

and that fueled the sense of can we trust obama? is he going to cut a deal with the a rainy and have much broader impact on the weapons impact or impact our interest in iran and iraq. it has been more than one issue going back for more than a few years that has kind of created this unease among our allies, particularly in the middle east. >> you get the sense that the president has said he worries about making a mistake. he worries most of all about doing something stupid. i don't quite know what he means but i think he means getting sucked into a war like afghanistan or iraq that takes a terrible toll, not only in terms of the most important consequences of human lives, but also treasure and also, it means there is an omission of something he might've done otherwise. some other thing in terms of say developing a better relationship with china or with other people

in asia. right? >> you look at iraq, you can see why. bush made a decision and it is something the country is grappling with. people in washington -- there is constant blaming but there is no doubt we unleashed something in iraq that we are still dealing with. it seems to be getting uglier over time. you can understand the hesitancy. i can. a foreign-policy observers and one of them describe the president has a look before you leap kind of guy and he definitely is. every big decision, there is a big study group. decision, afghanistan he really sifted through. was trying todent sum up his foreign-policy and his advisers were -- they would probably say it was essentially do not be stupid.

that is his approach on the world stage. him,might make sense to but it is very unclear to a lot of people domestically and overseas what exactly that means. >> lemmie make two points. --t the president might say number one, sanctions. iran is at the table because of sanctions and they put together those sanctions. that is the kind of foreign policy the president believes in. russia,wo, looking at the sanctions have caused russia to pause for a moment in terms of what he is prepared to do. does the administration have a good point? >> the sanctions as one of these policies that everyone is claiming credit. the bush administration, the congress really drove in many ways. as far as being this destructive to the iranian economy. of buy-inot

from the europeans. the negotiations are happening and is really hard to tell if the iranians will go to the levels that is needed to get to an agreement. the deadline is next sunday and i think -- and i do not think anybody knows. the negotiations have been effective but there is a sense that hasn't gone enough? is putin really -- they are still standing arms -- sending arms and the situation in ukraine is still pretty unstable. is not a clear picture. it has been revolutionary in a lot of ways in the way the abused these sanctions and a lot of different people have been a part of this. >> can you make the case in all of this that people were more aggressive than they would've been otherwise because they doubted the fact the united states would respond? >> certainly, there are members

of foreign leaders who would make that case and that is part of the concern that is driving them. is reassurance obama having to give them. you canook at ukraine, take it on the flipside which is if you are the white house, you are probably really frustrated that these allies who may be criticizing you for not going far enough will not go as far as you want them to go meaning that the president has tried to get countries like germany to go further on sanctions against russia to try to contain this. has traded a cohesion among europe and the u.s. for what could be a stronger package if the u.s. move a little further. however, he is battling the fact no matter what the u.s. does, it is not going to be much of anything if you don't have europeans on board.

>> thank you very much. an arc of instability unseen since the 1970's -- a fascinating piece about america around the world. i complement you and the wall street journal because there was another piece over the weekend about jihad. if he really want to go on her stand isi -- go understand beginningss and all the conflicts in the middle east, especially among those jihadist forces, that is a very good place to stary. t. my thanks -- thank you, jake. y. thank you, carol. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪

>> david plouffe is here. he was the campaign manager for president obama's 2008 presidential campaign. from 2011 to 2013, he served as senior advisor to the president. former white house chief of staff bill daley has said the president probably took david's opinion with more certitude than anyone else. if david said "x" i think the president would more often believe "x" than challenge it. i am pleased to have them here

here for the first time. it is great to have the year because i am interested in what you do. we can talk about many things. i intend to talk about foreign policy, but in this limited time, what interests me is america. you have done something remarkable and part of two great experiences -- winning presidential campaigns. going to the public at different times. on the one hand, you had the magic of a narrative that was overwhelming. the first african-american, a man who brought great pride. the second time, it was a different kind of campaign. >> more of a grind. >> in the end, you're going to the people and saying -- support us. you have to understand america, i think, to be elected by americans. tell me how you see the country and the influence. >> no one is going to succeed in

a campaign no matter the locale, certainly an american presidential election without understanding the country and where they want to go. it is an interesting place we find ourselves in. you have people with household income with say $75,000. people below $50,000 are not feeling much better. we need to understand that -- a lot of people are struggling. >> they are in fact losing. >> they feel more secure about their job situation which is great, but the definition of security has changed. it is less about buying a second car or going on vacation than having a car repair bill. a lot of people are struggling. our country is changing from a diversity standpoint. the middle part of the century, states are going to be unrecognizable compared to where they are today. technology is playing a huge

and i role, although you have a little bit a divide. you and i spend all our time on mobile phones. not everybody across the country does. what i am struck by is their optimism even during the recession. there is more that -- you always have to remember and i think the president spoke well on this -- washington looks like democrats and republicans can't agree on anything, anytime, anywhere. but most americans can they can figure out a way. >> how can washington do it? >> we are in a very tough place and i think the republicans bear the most of the -- >> it is a big challenge. >> it is. i think we are in a time when the republican party, the base of the republican party, cannot be more disconnected from the middle electorate. you have the wings in both parties, the loudest voices get the most attention.

you see -- it is much worse in the republican party. and the republican party. when a member of the party reaches out to do something that their basis agrees with, to get i and a you a their bases agrees with, they get smacked down pretty quickly. it is with senator manchin and senator toomey did on gun a a a a senator toomey did on gun background checks and gun violence. really heroic, i thought. yes. it is a real problem because right now, it is policed by the kind of entertainment complex in both parties. the republican party is disconnected from reality, in my view in washington. >> at the same time, the president has terrible numbers. you think that is because of gridlock in washington or because of what? >> i think he is probably in the mid-40's right now. i think you will see those numbers go up. >> he is improving, is he not? >> it will take a while.

second terms are difficult. we have the attention span of a gnat in the country. news cycles are like 15 minutes at most now. you have been around for seven years. i think washington remains dysfunctional. most voters do not blame the president but he is the one in charge so they are dissatisfied. there's no doubt the shutdown did real harm to the economy. >> they didn't seem to just blame the republicans. it seemed to be a plague on all your houses for the gridlock. >> i think what they say is you're dealing with a crowd of unreasonable, irresponsible, dogmatic republicans. you are still the president. you are presiding over a time of dysfunction. >> it happened on your watch and you are partly responsible. >> people think the president has tried over and over again. they have not seen the results. what matters is what he has gotten done and i think he's going to go down as a great president in history. the economy bouncing back.

health care reform. a huge pivot to green energy. ending the iraq war. historic leadership around gay and lesbian rights. you have a lot of people still hurting the economy. the headlines seem to be dominated by foreign policy which is not the interest of most voters. >> i want to talk about that. they do not think the american people care. it is not their highest priority by far. it is clearly economic security and jobs and health, i assume. family issues are more important. as you say headlines -- do you think that media is overemphasizing foreign policy? >> these are important issues for the globe. you have to understand the average american obviously -- the troops are very important. they saw iraq and afghanistan through the lens of the economy.

one of the reasons was they thought we are underinvested here, our economy went off the rails, the infrastructure is not what it needs to be, the education system is not where it needs to be -- they thought attention was turned elsewhere. there is a real hesitancy. before we get into another engagement of a military nature, they're going to be highly skeptical. that is why ending the iraq war was the central commitment of the president that he delivered on. >> now he is under attack because he failed to negotiate leaving some troops there which some argue have prevented some of the problems the maliki administration has. >> i highly doubt a few thousand troops on the ground would've overcome centuries of sectarian -- >> the argument is not so much that but -- if the u.s. was there they would have more influence on maliki and perhaps

they would've been more open and tolerant of sunnis. because those people that thought they were shut out are supporting isis. >> the maliki government was resistant. it would've made a difference. there is no question that the original sin was the invasion in the first place and the lack of a clear strategy afterwards. the whole region is obviously unstable as we've seen. >> there was a piece today by paul krugman saying something that i know you like to read. obamacare fails to fail. what is history's judgment on obamacare? >> i think it will be resoundedly positive. there is no question that as the years go by, there will be parts of the law which is not quite working as well as it should be. there would have to be some

adjustments, but, this is a very mainstream, moderate approach to health care. >> mainstream moderate with no way he could've achieved what he wanted to do without making the hard decisions he had to make? >> when we ran for president, we didn't have a single platform. the health-care system was delivered. he will attend the millions of people health-care. almost everybody in the country benefiting from free preventive care. here is what is going to happen slowly over time and be less important than what people like rick perry will say. everybody is a health care consumer so everybody's going to have conversations with people. people will say, hey, this is not some socialist plot. it is basically enabling aetna and blue cross blue shield to deliver coverage. >> what about all those small businesses who are crying the loudest? >> there is no doubt there is going to be some businesses affected. >> or in agony.

>> you will not have 100% winners but the vast majority of small businesses will have the advantage. >> the prices are going up. >> some are and some are not. you will see businesses large and small, entrepreneurs and innovators, are going to have great benefit by having guaranteed coverage. the portability which is something bill clinton talked about -- it is so important for people to have the knowledge that no matter what i do, i will have the ability to have affordable health care. so much is about coverage but i think a lot of the technological advances will help bring down health care costs which is something we have to do. >> even though he said we will end those two wars -- afghanistan and he will do that it looks like even though we have terrible things happening and the presidential election that we don't know what the result will be and the question will be how many troops will be there. if you look at where the

president is today, is his mind and his head always been primarily on domestic issues because that is what shapes -- >> you cannot be. that is the central challenge of his presidency. recover from the recession but also to lift more people in the middle-class so that is the challenge of his presidency. having worked in the white house and a lot of time in the situation room, there are proactive things you want to get done. there is naturally a lot of reacting. you have things you are trying to get done. the economy, social issues, education. the record will shown he has tried to deliver. foreign policy will always be important. this is a very eventful time. there is a notion in washington from the conventional, foreign-policy crowd that the whole world is a chessboard and americans move around. we certainly influence it. we lead, but there are a lot of events out there.

technology, social networking, countries like china. there are a lot of factors and i think it is very naïve to think -- >> that raises an interesting question in which i often think about. has this president realized that there are limits to american power more so than he imagined? >> i do not think so because you look at all these situations. we are the only one in the center of all of them. no. i think it is clear -- the bush years -- i think the rest of the world had a negative reaction. people want us to lead and desperate for us to lead in the right way. i think each of these situations are complex. i think at the end of the day -- i think we're still the one indispensable nation. i think people look to us to lead and i think that is what the president is trying to do in very difficult circumstances. >> what is the difference between the indispensable nation and the exceptional nation?

>> well, i happen to agree that we are both. i think the indispensable nation is obviously the role we have played in the world stage since world war i. i think what our strengths -- even at times when we are still having all these foreign-policy challenges, too many people are not feeling economically strong -- you look at our college system, our innovation that is happening. so many of the great inventions are happening here. we have such huge strength. we are going to be energy independent. we have all these strengths. everyone in the world would change places with us in a minute and i think it is important to remember that given all the turmoil and difficult times, we have huge strengths. you are beginning to see the economy pick up steam. we are ending two wars. i think we have a hugely important and great period ahead of us.

the one thing congress can do right now which would be a trifecta of powerful forces -- help the economy, lift gdp, reduce the deficit, and we are training all these people in our colleges and sending them to compete against us. it is the dumbest thing we could be doing. it would obviously be a huge assist to the republicans politically. despite those stars being aligned, you have the tea party faction digging at our heels. you think about what is being left for washington to jumpstart the economy. most of this happens in the private sector. immigration reform would be one. infrastructure -- first of all, it would help with growth and we would have our workforce would be enhanced. we would get a lot -- it would help with the deficit because you get a lot of people out of the shadows paying taxes. it would send a great signal around the world. you have a good idea, you are smart and innovative, come to the united states.

we are sending an intolerant signal right now and it is bad for the economy. >> the most important thing we can do is not only is what america stands for, not only the contribution because most people say they are not opposed to legal immigration. it is illegal immigration that gets people over policy. is that fair? >> the politicians, not the people. the faith community, the law-enforcement community, republican governors, the business community almost. i have not met a business person who is opposed. >> the faith community and the business community on the side of immigration reform. you are saying that it is being held hostage by the tea party. does the business community have no influence? is that the nature of the tea party? >> i think you are seeing mainstream republicans starting to be more willing to take them on. we need a functioning republican party and i think you see smart people -- you saw sheldon

adelson's and warran buffet's op-ed about immigration reform and he understands there is an economic component. the republicans have no chance of winning the white house if they are getting 28% of the latino vote. the will lose colorado, nevada. they will lose new mexico, florida. they can even lose arizona. >> there are many subjects i can talk to you about. there is one subject i cannot talk to other people about because you have unique expertise. it is this man who is president of the united states. you were, it is fair to say, at the time you joined his senate campaign a guy who loved politics. you wanted to be involved in politics and had participated in campaigns. what drew you to barack obama in his senate campaign? and was that initial impression

not only the deepest impression but the impression that has continued? >> my partner in crime, david axlerod, and barack obama were friends. they got us involved in the senate race when he started out in fifth place and nobody gave him a chance to win. >> david axelrod joined you in chicago politics and that says he has confidence in you. >> when i worked with barack obama in that senate campaign, did i say this was the future president? of course not. that is what makes this story so improbable. he was elected as president. he was someone of high integrity. politics tend to attract people of high ego. people who are not always consistent. day in and day out, same person -- measured. normal human being. >> reporter after reporter, people like david brooks say to me, they have never met anybody in politics more confident of

his own skills and his own intelligence. >> he is obviously off the charts intelligent. he has a clear sense of the direction he thinks the country needs to go. he is a very good decision-maker. we would spend a lot of time making sure we made good decisions but once you make them, you have to move on. >> how many times did you go to the oval office or wherever you had private conversations and said, mr. president, you are wrong. you're absolutely wrong. you are going to make a colossal mistake. do not go there. >> i will keep any of those conversations private. >> have you said to him that? >> i think it is very important

important whether you're a head of a news organization or a president. you have to have people around you. i think that is -- there are certain people that he trusts that have his best interest at heart. you have to have the ability and private moments to express your opinion, but he is someone -- you are right. he is a very competent person. my sense is that he believes we were trying to change america, the trajectory, on health care, foreign policy. it is a big cruise liner which happens slowly. at this moment in time, you look at the republican argument versus the democratic argument on so many issues. it is not the democratic argument enjoys public support. i think what is hard to argue is immigration reform and infrastructure investments and finally tackling health care and trying to move to a more balanced all of the above energy approach -- these are things most economists and academics and business people tell you it is the right thing to do. i think his confidence is based on facts and conversations he has had with others. >> i have to let you go and i

hope you will come back. i hope we can continue this. you have more people who were closer to the president. whether there has been a shift in the way the white house is operated because it is a difference in the nature of the makeup. let us continue with that when you come back. >> part two. >> thank you for joining us. we will be right back. ♪

>> lorin maazel, the great conductor, died on sunday after suffering from complications of pneumonia. he was 84. he led some of the greatest orchestras, including cleveland, paris, and munich. he served as director of the of the new york philharmonic from 2002 to 2009. he described that job as the summit of his field. he was a study in contradictions and invoked feelings from musicians, administrators, critics and audiences. he was born in france in 1930 but was raised in the united states and studied the violin and piano as a child and quickly emerged as a progidy. he was invited to conduct the symphony for the national broadcast from radio city music hall at the age of 11. he would go want to conduct more

than 150 orchestras and more than 5000 opera and concert performances and make at least 300 recordings. he was acclaimed for the precision of his baton technique and his towering intellect. he once said of his ambition of a conductor -- i am never looking for a perfect performance. i am looking for an impassioned performance. he is survived by seven children and four grandchildren. he appeared on this program many times over the years. i enjoyed his friendship and looked at him for an understanding of the majesty of music. here is some of those conversations. more career, and you look at per se of your career and you look at all of things i mentioned in your introduction. what is it that is most important to you? is it what? >> making the music come alive. frame where one feels completely unstressed.

a young musician is freaked out and nervous and afraid. he is ambitious. he must make his mark. middle-aged,der, you want to maintain your division. you feel as if you have to continue fighting. age when you get to be my and have had the good fortune of growing older in a mellow way, it is bloody fun. i love making music. i am not trying to prove anything. i'm not trying to achieve anything. i just want to make music with people i admire. >> this is a great time for classical music in the world today. >> why? >> i hold new generation of despite orts who

maybe because of the world they live in, are crazy about classical music. i have heard 13-year-old violinists. it is libelous stuff. -- fabulous stuff. societycome out of the that can spawn a young artist at that level, that means there are a lot of people who love classical music, especially when it is represented or performed by people as young as they are. >> what is it about music that brings you the most satisfaction? >> people, people. i love to interact with humans. i remember the young conductor, not young child. i'd accept engagement in some

very odd corners of the earth simply to be able to go to that corner and learn something about people that i have better -- that i have never had contact with. villages in mexico, i used to go there. in really lost places and meet people. learn something, added to my language. just grow. >> what is the mission of an orchestra? >> in today's world? >> the philharmonic. what does it owe us? what is the responsibility to this community and the larger community? >> it was an orchestra founded 150 years ago and more. it represents a classical tradition which has today renewed. there are several ways of her knowing -- renewing.

the different repertoire, you shine it up. heardpeople have never beethoven symphony. >> or they heard it, they do not know. >> there are always new audiences. everything is happening today, it has its venues. it has support. it wasf places where written the day before yesterday and it is going to be heard. having said that, the masterpieces of the 20th century , we used to live in the 20th century. remember the good old days? [laughter] they are important pieces. a tradition is going to die.

>> it is often said that composers can make a great conductors as a part of the conventional wisdom. conductors do not necessarily make great composers though. have you ever heard that? >> many composers have a great conductors or the other way around. it is a separate talent. does notn instrument qualify one to conduct an orchestra at all. it teaches you a great deal about music but it is another kind of talent. >> but you were a better conductor because you can play an instrument better than you can play a violin? >> i believe so. i am only saying to young people if you want to conduct, study all the instruments of the orchestra, learn how to write, find out how that is run. of a ship who is admired and respected by his crew is the one who worked his way through that place and knows

it all. >> i want to stay with this. you obviously had to be interested in this if you wanted to be the conductor of the orchestra. >> age nine. nine, you began conducting. nine. [laughter] you know. explain it to me. a childyou know about prodigy? >> most of the ones i have met, these children have not had a normal childhood. their parents have exploited them. i had the good fortune of having parents who were not only not interested in exploiting whatever talent i had, a but refused a fee for the performance. i would conduct the new york philharmonic and it would make an agreement with the presenter,

makes travel expenses. it is not proper that a child receives a fee for what he does. important, only five concerts a year when i was going to school. when i went to school and played baseball, i was on the football team, i was a stocky boy who was good at judo. i had a good, long childhood. >> we don't need to worry about you not developing well because you were -- >> the great thing to me is because of the interest i had in music and the obvious talent for it -- >> who was the most brilliant? bach or beethoven or mozart? >> comparisons are odious, they say. bach certainly is the fountain

from which all great music in the west has sprung. having said that, i think that mozart perhaps because he was a personal genius -- what other kind of genius can you have? the kind of genius he had which -- universal, effortlessly >> was more precocious and the others? >> yes. repertoire of a music that is unsurpassed and unparalleled in classical music. beethoven was a struggler. he really fought the demons within him and the world around him. outside of his domain. he fought for every note and he struggled. extraordinaryan

reservoir of great music. still, you feel that struggle and it is a struggle of his mortality to his music. you feel the struggle and triumph he had in putting it all together successfully. >> you see it differently today than you did 10 years ago simply because you felt more about it, you see it differently because of your experiences? you have a different eye? not necessarily in a positive way. in my case, as a composer who see the music i that i have inherited from the great classical tradition. i feel much richer for having had that experience. i think i can communicate the joy of having understood,

finally, how enriched i have been. i feel the same about the music and yet, i do not. that is the same technically, the beethoven symphonies we performed with our own markings and adding shadings, that has not changed. i think i have infused music with a renewed passion that partially stems to the fact i have fallen in love with the new york philharmonic. is an extraordinary orchestra. glownk they make music with a vibrancy of dedication. >> are you surprised he fell in love with the? it? >> absolutely. i am surprised. >> why? >> it is a great orchestra and i have had the privilege of conducting other orchestras. >> this one is unique in the relationship? >> we seem to understand one

another. >> beyond expectation? >> yes. i came here with no expectations whatsoever. i said, let's see what will happen. publicly i am in love with this orchestra. >> i am in love with my orchestra! what do you want to be played at your funeral? >> i had thought as a younger man that i win joy loving the juliet.om romeo juand incredible music. now, i think i would prefer else.ing i would appreciate hearing that they will be around

hearing. >> lorin maazel, dead at 84. ♪

♪ >> this is "taking stock" for july 15, 2014. it's tuesday. i'm pimm fox. today's theme is genius. apple, google, yahoo!, all in the headlines. silicon valley geniuses. we get the latest details on corporate rules. plus, changing the name to genius was genius. all right the company's , executive talks about brand adjustment, a new round of funding, and the ouster of one of their cofounders. and a billionaire genius details