Talk:Standing Stone (album)/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
untitled
How can you have "original classical music"? Orchestral music, sure, but classical music would have to come from the 1800s at the latest...Stevage 08:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- You've never heard of "modern classical" then? --kingboyk 10:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Mediaeval, Rennaisance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic--- all terms for different eras of music history. "Classical" unfortunately gets applied to just about all serious art music: that is, music that is not "commercial" or "popular'. After the Romantic era, came the Modern era. There is Modern music, and it is not jazz or rock or pop or country etc etc. But in the minds of the general population, plainsong is classical, all opera is classical, all symphonies are classical. It is technically incorrect, but you can't teach the ignorant. 68.71.8.22 (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Moved
The title does not technically include the words "Paul McCartney's" and the work is rarely called that, except perhaps in the looser sense (eg John Smith's Workshop). It is simply called "Standing Stone". Album covers often use the format "Name's Work" rather than "Work by Name", but that does not mean that "Name's" is part of the title. Even the DAB (McCartney) may not be necessary but it might as well stay. Jubilee♫clipman 22:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Criticism
Is anyone willing to start a critique of *Standing Stone*. Description, musical merits, value, thematic material and its development? Also, were there more performances other than the premiere? What is the thought about this work by the musical establishment? 68.71.8.22 (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)