♪ >> 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 beset the white house.

the front page of today's wall street journal described the situation as an arc of instability unseen since the 1970's. joining me now from washington is the two authors of that piece. jay solomon who covers foreign affairs and national security and carol lee. the paper's white house correspondent. i am pleased to have the both of them. welcome. >> thank you for having us. >> tell me where did the idea come from. did 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. >> i think, for me, i was traveling a lot with secretary kerry over the past few months. and it was just kind of every week, there was another crisis. you know, it was ukraine, iraq, syria, and now it in the middle east. it is a continued crises and trying to figure out what is the

pulling them together, what is the unifying theme. and 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, you know voters wanted , that, they wanted to be left -- less engaged, but at the same time, there are all these challengers coming whether it is the russians, the chinese, the iranians. or these nonstate actors, so for me, it was looking at why is all of this happening at the same time, and what is kind of the unifying factor? to me, it was this moment in time where we are pulling back at least for the time being militarily. and all of these other players are coming into this vacuum, or , vacuum or 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.

>> ok, carol, when you look at the white house, do they recognize this, and do they have a strategy to meet the challenge of this arc of instability? >> well, i would say on your first point, yes they do , recognize this. and it is something they are increasingly concerned about. also disappointed about, that we have a president who wanted to pursue a proactive foreign-policy agenda on issues like middle east peace and getting a deal with iran over its nuclear program. it is now consistently reacting to events. is taking what he had hoped 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

really explain that at his speech at west point in may. and then, all of a sudden, it was as if 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. you know, russia continued to be aggressive, the middle east and syria, the civil war continued, and the u.s. is going back into iraq. you are seeing what is happening in the middle east over the past week. and so now, the white house is trying to sort of manage all of these things while still president'sthe foreign-policy doctrine which is that the u.s. will take a multilateral approach and try to not get as involved as it could militarily. and that has raised a whole host of questions whether -- how much of this is the president's doing? meaning there is various u.s.

allies that are nervous about the way he approaches foreign policy and how much of this would've happened anyway? and it is a result for having perhaps policies that came before he took office. >> can you make the case, jay, 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 sayd, which a lot of people 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. i think, you know, he's set these redlines in syria last summer and said repeatedly if gassed his people we would , react and we would europe or some military action last summer and it did not happen. i know i talked to a number of

our allies in the gulf, even and they looked at this stuff, and they said, if the chinese made a major grab on some of these islands that are being disputed, would we react, could we react? if the iranians do something to challenge our allies, would we react? they look at the negotiations on the iranians on the nuclear issue, is this a sign of u.s. engagement or u.s. pulling out? i think both his -- the example and some of the rhetoric, has made allies nervous. i think some of the positions the president took are totally understandable. i still 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. but, you know, singing you are setting 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 of the united states. do they see eye to eye, or does 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 -- hawkish than the president. on syria, he was talking about a much more aggressive army and supporting of the opposition. he gave that impassioned speech when the u.s. look like it was going to take action in syria and got left out on a limb. so that is definitely the sense i get. i think on iraq too, he probably deemed to be much more willing to take action that did not happen. so i think that is a fair analysis that kerry is more hawkish than president obama.

>> what about the white house and the national security council? >> i think that is right. they see it as the president campaigned on a certain foreign-policy strategy that was widely supported among american public. and he is sticking to that for better or worse. i mean, you have seen for the worse -- his foreign policy standing among the american public has been at its lowest since it is been since his presidency in our poll last month, and now part of the , frustration on the side of the white house is that he is doing exactly what he said he would do. and -- and 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 are feeling a little like he is taking it too far. like perhaps he is overcorrected for what he perceived as president bush's foreign-policy mistakes. >> yes, but in an interesting you carol, to interrupted

that is exactly what the , president did bad. john kerry goes to yale and makes a speech in which he 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. >> right. 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. but when you have this number of very high stakes with huge consequences, hugely consequential events taking place, it really puts the pressure on the white house to explain and how they are not over correcting for this, and as john kerry said, swinging too far 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

president's decision to set a redline in syria and then you walk up to the redline and at the last-minute draw back -- i have traveled with the president since he came into office and covered him and i have never seen a man go overseas in this way and repeatedly reassure allies that are usually on our side. that he is going to have our back, if something 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 even his allies are saying at this point. >> i talked to some leaders in gulf kingdom, 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. of its allies, and they say, yes, to me. but, it is one thing this make a speech, and then another thing to look in the eye of us and tell us. >> and i have traveled 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. i mean take saudi arabia for , instance. they are very nervous about the u.s.'s engagement with iran. and the president had a trip earlier this year 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. and he is repeatedly having to do that. and i think part of the frustration if you talk to people in the white house is that, yes 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.

and so, but they still continue to battle this perception. and perception is something, particularly when you're dealing with foreign policy and the different actors. >> now, with the arab states, the arab leaders have been particularly interesting in terms of managing allies because there was really a string of decisions going back to the arab spring in late 2010 and 2011 that really kind of made air of -- arab leaders nervous. this was a close ally and we kind of showed him the door and everybody was saying if you kick him out, it would much more unstable. then, there was the decision to not go into c-reactive after setting these red lines, which really infuriated the saudi's, in particular, and then, the iran negotiations, which i think people were supportive of, they were happening in secret behind the back of the saudis and israelis and that fueled the sense of can we trust obama?

is he going to cut a deal with with the iranians that is going a much broader impact on the weapons issue and also 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 do get the sense that the president has said he worries about making a mistake. i mean he worries most of all , about doing something stupid. i don't quite know what he means but i think he means getting at least 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?

>> i mean, if you look at iraq, you can see why. bush made a decision and it is still something the country is grappling with. mean, people in washington, as you know there is constant , blaming but there is no doubt we unleashed something in iraq that we are still dealing with. and it seems to be getting uglier over time. you can understand the hesitancy. i mean, i certainly can. >> we talked to a foreign-policy observers and one of them described the president has a look before you leap kind of guy and he definitely is. every big decision, there is a big study group. remember before the afghanistan decision, he really sifted through. and went through that, but, also when the president was trying to , sum up his foreign-policy and his advisers were -- they would privately say it was essentially do not be stupid. stuff. your pg audience

that is his approach on the world stage. that might make sense to him, but it is very unclear to a lot of people domestically and overseas what exactly that means. >> all right, let me make two points. number what the president might one, say -- number one, sanctions. iran is at the table because of sanctions and they put together those sanctions. and that is the kind of foreign policy the president believes in. number two, looking at russia, it is perhaps true that 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. they started under the bush administration, the congress really drove in many ways as far as being this destructive to the iranian economy. and we had a lot of buy-in from

the europeans on this, and it has been very successful. i mean, i think it will still be up for debate. 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. i do not -- the deadline is next sunday, and i do not think anybody knows. yes, the sanctions have been effective but there is a sense that, has it gone enough, and is putin really -- they are still sending arms and the situation in ukraine is still pretty unstable. is not a clear picture. i guess. it has been successful, and it has been revolutionary in a lot ways, 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. to need the kind of reassurance that president obama has been having to give all of them on a regular basis. if you look at ukraine, you can take it on the flipside which is if you are the white house, you are privately 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 much further on sanctions against russia to try to contain this. he has traded his want of a cohesion among europe and the u.s. for what could be a stronger package if the u.s. moved a little further. however, he is battling the fact no matter what the u.s. does, it is really 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. and how their role is being exercised. i compliment you and the "wall street journal" because there was another piece over the weekend about jihad. and if you really want to go understand isis and its beginnings and understanding sunni, shia, and all of the conflicts in the middle east, especially among those jihadist forces, that is a very good place to start. that piece over the weekend about jihad in the middle east and other places. my thanks. thank you, jay. thank you, carol. >> thank you. >> 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 him here for the first time. welcome. 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. or a broken appliance. a lot of people are struggling. and he 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. in terms of the percentage of asiantino vote, the vote. 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. to get to yes. >> 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 when a member of the party reaches out to do something that disagrees wtih, 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 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 but inot in the states 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. that has kind of been our

range. 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. it is a long time. i think washington remains highly 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. we get that, but 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. from historic recession. health care reform. a huge pivot to green energy. ending the iraq war. historic leadership around gay and lesbian rights. all of these things are going to stand the test of time. 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. i use that word carefully. 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.

critical, but 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. it is not like they do not care, but, boy, 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. and so it is under attack. >> 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 he, perhaps, would've been more open and tolerant of sunnis. because what is happening is those people that thought they were shut out are supporting in many cases 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 >> 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. >> if you look at this remarkable career, and you look things i mentioned in your introduction. what is it that is most important to you? is it what? >> making the music come alive. to do so in a frame where one feels completely unstressed.

a young musician is freaked out and nervous and afraid. he is ambitious. he must make his mark. as you get older, middle-aged, you want to maintain your division. you feel as if you have to continue fighting. but, when you get to be my age 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 young artists who despite or maybe because of the world they live in are crazy about

classical music. i have heard 13-year-old violinists. it is fabulous stuff. if they come out of the society 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 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 renewing. the different repertoire, you shine it up.

these people have never heard beethoven symphony. >> or they heard it, they do not know. >> there are always new audiences. the new music, everything is happening today, it has its venues. it has support. a lot of places where it was 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. playing an instrument does not 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. the captain 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, you began conducting. nine. [laughter] you know. explain it to me. what do you know about a child 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,

make travel expenses. it is not proper that a child receives a fee for what he does. and, much more 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 was universal, effortlessly -- >> was more precocious than the others? >> yes. he often wrote a repertoire of 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. the result is an extraordinary 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 also conducts, i see the music 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. i think they make music glow with a vibrancy of dedication. >> are you surprised he fell in love with 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. i confess 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 would enjoy loving the music from romeo and juliet. incredible music. now, i think i would prefer something else. i would think i would appreciate hearing verdi. i would appreciate hearing them.

>> lorin maazel, dead at 84. ♪

>> live from pier 3 in san francisco, welcome to "bloomberg west," where we cover innovation, technology, and the future of business. i'm emily chang. ahead this hour, apple to work with ibm to create business software applications for iphone and ipad users according to a statement. it will be tailored to work with ibm data analytics and cloud services. ibm will sell apple to its customers and apple will offer customer service for the apps. ford ceo alan mulally joining google's there's. he was appointed july 9 and will serve on the google audit committee. the former auto executive engineered a turnaround he