Deryk Barker wrote:

>No disagreement from me, My problem is that we are expected to hear - buy
>indeed - these early gropings of his as if they were mature masterworks.

This is where I just don't understand where or how you come up with these
ideas.  I am just curious.  I bought the "Working Classical" CD (received
it as a gift from my babe, actually) and looking at the track listing I
wasn't "expecting to hear" anything but McCartney music.  I was completely
familiar with the song titles and never once thought of them as NEW stuff
by Paul or even NEW concepts.  Orchestrating Beatles songs has been a fad
for some time.  I am curious as to why you think we are expected to think
of his old stuff as mature masterworks when they are very clearly re-done
pop songs....re-done McCartney pop songs.

>I seem to recall reading somewhere that EMI had spent 6 months' classical
>advertising budget on Standing Stone.  So othe things and people will
>suffer.

As far as Standing Stone is concerned, I think Paul, even given his
incredible fame, might need that kind of publicity to acquire a new
listening audience for his "classical" music.  Any one of us may readily
go into the record store and pick up some Mahler or Mozart knowing full
well what to expect from our favorite masters.  Paul just doesn't have this
same situation about his classical works.  It may take an extra nudge from
the record executives to get the word of Paul McCartney's music out on the
street, where Bach doesn't need that kind of advertising.

-Wes Crone