Talk:Stephen Cleobury

The Dean's retirement
Can I point out, as a chorister at King's College, that the Dean of King's did not retire: he caught cancer and sadly died a month later. Please check your sources.


 * Er... the article doesn't say anything about the Dean of King's. Ben Finn 14:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

St John Passion is missing in the list of recordings. I think it's from 1996 (?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ursulinskaja (talk • contribs) 21:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Musical Policy
David Willcocks, his predecessor in charge of Kings, was instrumental in continuing to develop the clean tone of English vocal technique, further pursued by Emma Kirkby. However, Stephen Cleobury has not continued that development, and seems to have lost his way following the failure of the experimental and avant-garde styles he attempted to espouse in the 1980s. It is, for example, noticeable that Cambridge also hosts John Rutter, arguably the world's leading choral composer, who works with the Cambridge Singers rather than either Kings' or St Johns'. His policy is clearly piecemeal, not pursuing any coherent logic in any thread other than to be controversial. This is in part because there has been little agreement between avant-garde composers as to where they are taking music, each living in his own little bubble without any great cross-fertilization from his peers and less still from his predecessors. It is one thing to claim fame for notoriety and another for innovative development, and Kings was not the place for the former. The very fact that Cleobury never looked back on his past contributions speaks volumes in this, that he's not learning anything from them, and by not learning is not adjusting his course, which hardly matters as he seems to have none. Given this, is it NPOV to exclude the criticism of his work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.173.156 (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this is the time!  But in the longer term, provided you can find reputable sources, and provided (please) you will avoid any scintilla of gratuitous ad hominem waspishness, there is no reason why you should not start a section on "Musical policy" in the entry itself.   Any opinions should clearly be the opinions of the (authoritative) sources that you cite, however, and not the opinions of a mere humble wiki-contributor!   We get too much of that - IM(H)O - already in entries on Cambridge academics!   Success Charles01 (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)