Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 September 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 31 << Aug | Sep | Oct >> September 2 >
Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions at one of the pages linked to above.


Musical Opinion

[edit]

In your opinion, what is/are the best album/s ever. This is question is strictly opinion based, I am interested in exploring music I am not familiar with and would appreciate all serious responses. Thanks for your input.

Asking which albums have been found to be best in surveys etc. would be more in the spirit of this forum; see Pop albums that have consistently appeared in top lists, etc., and I know that the BBC news site has accounts of the results of several such contests... AnonMoos 02:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anything by Nirvana is a good start. --The Dark Side 02:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zombie and Water No Get Enemy by Fela Kuti, The Velvet Underground and Nico by The Velvet Underground (and Nico), The Complete Last Concert by the Modern Jazz Quartet, Porgy and Bess by Miles Davis (as well as Miles Ahead, Someday My Prince Will Come, Bitches Brew, the list continues), Green Onions by Booker T and the MGs, Highway 61 Revisited by Bob Dylan (and ALL his other stuff), Tje Ni Moussou by Amadou and Mariam, anything by the Bothy Band, Bill Evans, Keith Jarrett, or by Astrud Gilberto, or Art Blakey (though I especially love Paris 1958). Astor Piazzola's pretty cool. If you haven't noticed, this isn't a single GREATEST cd, but it's a list of a bunch of good ones and good artists in pretty varying fields, cause that seems to be what you're looking for. If you want great classical, look into Tchaikovsky (his concertos and piano pieces are just as good as the ballets), Debussy, Beethoven (no shit), Mozart (but he's so passe), Prokofiev (Romeo and Juliet is the bomb)......... Hope that's what you're looking for. I didn't want to overload you with names. Oh well. 70.108.185.102 04:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mozart passé? Hardly. Quality endures. JackofOz 04:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I was kidding about that. And I left out Kind of Blue (and hundreds of other albums - including, now that I see another contributer's name, Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon, and a lot of his other albums). 70.108.185.102 05:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The soundtrack to Godzilla the movie was pretty good too.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  16:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


have you heard kelly clarkson's new one- breakaway? thats pretty good. also christina aguilera's stripped really helped me out. oh, and kylie minogue's 'fever' is, in my humble opionion, pop perfection.200.199.53.17 20:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Perfection does not exist in the world of pop music. Pop music is hardly what I was looking for. The largest response was quite satisfactory, for that I thank you.[reply]

Rhapsody in Blue by George Gershwin. Possibly the only succesful haybrid classical/jazz song ever. --The Dark Side 20:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are truly interested in studying music, then you should listen to every big hit you can and ask yourself, "Why was this a hit?" Focus especially on the music you do not like. The same goes for any form of art. For example, you can watch every movie that wone the Academy Award for Best Picture and ask, "What made that movie so special?" In my personal opinion, there are very few songs that near perfection. The ones that do tend to stand the tests of time. Obviously, you can't look at anything in the past 25 years to see if it has stood the test of time - but there is a hell of a lot of music that existed long before MTV started telling us what was good. --Kainaw (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thart sounds like really bad advise. You may score some hits (althouhg marketing is more important for that), but this will only hinder you in making good music. The best art is made by people who don't give a shit about the rest. Think of it. Which great artists played by the rules? Art is about breaking the rules. DirkvdM 07:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Hubbard and Charles Mingus have done a few near-perfect songs as well, in my opinion. And Led Zeppelin. And Henri Dikongue. And yes, Gershwin's amazing. Sashafklein 01:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Curtis Mayfield's Superfly is pretty sweet, as is Funkadelic's Maggot Brain (if you're into funk), although I couldn't get away with calling either best-album-of-all-time material. Sashafklein 01:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wall by Pink Floyd of course. And several other bands most of whose entire repertoire is good, like Led Zeppelin, Genesis, ELP (with the exception of Love Beach), Jimi Hendrix (the official releases), Manfred Mann's Earth Band (Nightingales and Bombers is the first album I liked from beginning to end) and of course the Beatles (especially Abbey Road). Then there's seventies (and only seventies) Queen (especially Queen II and Sheer Heart Attack). As for single albums, Ten Years After Recorded Live, Jethro Tull's Thick as a Brick, Just a Poke by Sweet Smoke (I can play that whichever mood I'm in) and because it was a sign of its times, Never Mind the Bullocks. I notice that those are all British bands. Not that I don't like music from elsewhere, but I was being very critical (is that good English?) and in that light none of, say, the Doors albums stand out enough.
To right this national wrong (?) some classical music (although you asked for 'albums', I'll focus on the pieces, not the performances). There's the best piece ever, the Pathetique by Chaikovsky, Romeo and Juliet by Prokifiev, Rachmaninov's 2nd and 3rd pianoconcerto, Rodrigo's Concierto de Aranjuez, most stuff by Geschwin and of course the Four Seasons (no, not the girlie group). And of course many many more, but I could sit here all day. DirkvdM 07:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I were stuck on a deserted island with playback equipment, three pieces of music, and a year's supply of batteries, I'd choose:

Marble pedestal signed Petrelli? Value?

[edit]

Kudos to all who have helped in the past - I have an item in Maine at James Julia up for auction thanks to you.

Now I am searching for information on a marble pedestal signed I believe 'Petrelli'. It's white, beautiful, very ornate, and topped (separately) by a white marble sculpture titled (again I believe) Apollo Belvedere. Made in Italy probably early 1900's is it was purchased for the opening of a Minneapolis hotel in 1906. Any links or ideas as to value or where/how to sell? If this is not the proper place to post please feel free to let me know. Pedestal is approximately 3-4 feet tall.

Original artist:[1] Yours must be a reproduction. Petrelli seems to be an Italian name.--Light current 03:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raimondi seems to have been an engraver, not a sculptor. The Apollo Belvedere was sculpted by an unknown artist and discovered 40-50 years before Raimondi got into the act. JackofOz 03:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, he didn't engrave the actual sculpture, he made an engraving (ie. a two-dimensional representation onto a flat surface) of what it looked like. Like a picture, only engraved rather than painted or drawn. The engraving was copied and that's how the image of the statue became well known throughout Europe. JackofOz 04:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see! Thanks. Well where is the original sculpture now?--Light current 04:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the caption under the pic, it's in the "Museo Pio-Clementino". JackofOz 05:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except that this "original" is a copy of a much earlier bronze sculpture. --LambiamTalk 07:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't I see that? Not looking properly. Sorry 8-(--Light current 14:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist Philosophy

[edit]

I do remember, some time ago, reading something about how someonoe on the path of Enlightment who must, if he "meets his parents on the road, kill his parents; if he meets Buddha, kill the Buddha". But I could not for the life of me remember where I've read it (and yes, I am pretty confident it is an authentic, non-fictional source).

So my questions would be,

a) who said that, from what source, and, b) why would you have to kill your parents and/or Buddha? Is there a deeper meaning to it?

It's just a curiousity question, albeit one that reveals a fascinating insight into Eastern philosophy. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

--Amry 03:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Linji and Killing the Buddha for more information and references. ---Sluzzelin 05:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Something the koan doesn't explain is that according to traditional Buddhism, a Buddha cannot be killed, only wounded. And wounding a Buddha and murdering one's parents are among the five most heinous offences that anyone could possibly commit.--Shantavira 05:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's 'patriarchs' not 'parents', and if it means what I think it means then it's like Hui Neng's 'Finger Pointing at the Moon':

The truth and words are unrelated. The truth can be compared to the moon. And words can be compared to a finger.
I can use my finger to point out the moon, but my finger is not the moon, and you don't need my finger to see the moon, do you?

Rentwa 12:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those comments fall under what is commonly called the "twilight texts". My favorite part of them is the story of a priestess who proves she is on the path to enlightenment by offering the head priest a dinner of her own feces and urine. He eats it to prove he is further down the path than her. The point of all of it is the realization that nothing exists - therefore, there is no such thing as good and evil. If nothing is evil, you can kill the Buddha and you will not have any bad kharma following you. It is really nothing more than saying, "I'm above all that good and evil stuff." --Kainaw (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of British Motoring

[edit]

I am looking for information on the number of cars on British roads from the 1930's to the present day and how many cars owned per family. Also historical petrol prices and Road Tax prices. Any help gratefully received. Thanks

Automobile article is a good start.--Light current 14:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle excise duty doesnt have much history 8-(--Light current 16:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Fever' in the MasterCard Soccer worldcup spot

[edit]

Apparently, the daughter of the producer of the spot, Frank Lieberman, sung the version used in the spot[2]. I would be interested in purchasing a copy, but was unable to get a definite answer on if that's even possible. Thanks, RichiH 13:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising Impressions for Printed Materials

[edit]

I have searched all over to find out how many advertising impressions does it take to stick in someones mind?

I have heard seeing the same thing 3x times is what it takes but I am not sure. I would like to find an article or some information on it.

Thank you! Christine

Memory is strongly related to emotions. You will remember something after a certain number of times and for only a certain time, depending on your interest, motives in life, learning, and so on. Printed material differs also from other media, a good combination (TV or radio ads) may change the data. -- DLL .. T 17:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. For a highly interesting (or highly annoying) ad, you might remember it after one viewing. For a really boring ad, you may never remember it, no matter how many times you see it. StuRat 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Painting

[edit]

Can someone be as kind as to tell me what this painting is?

http://img103.imageshack.us/my.php?image=20uy4.jpg

It's the Monet painting, Impression, Sunrise. According to the Wikipedia article, the Impressionist movement was named after this painting. PoliticalJunkie 17:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wow, that is a really good painting for a four year old with crayons. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)
That's probably exactly the same thing you would have said if you had been born 200 years ago.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  09:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Issac Brock

[edit]

Hello, i am wondering if you could find out for me what Issac Brock said in his address to his troops just before the battle of queentson heights and his death. It would be a great help seeing as the book i owned that contained that information is lost to me.

thanks

142.161.226.195 19:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try Sir Isaac Brock, and also here.EricR 19:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm searching for heaven on earth

[edit]

I'm thinking of moving in to an inhabited place on earth that hasn't known any war, battle, major conflicts, occupation, opression, dictatorship, major crimes, epidemics, economic difficulties, natural disaster or a significant polution, and where there is internet, satellite TV and mobile access. Do you know such a place? CG 19:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technically Antarctica is inhabited, though the hole in the Ozone layer may qualify as pollution or disaster. Nowimnthing 20:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Internet, satellite TV, and mobile access sound nice, but I don't suspect they would be any good if you didn't have the health care to enjoy it. And "hasn't known any war" - do you mean ever? Scandinavia's been pretty peaceful for a long time now, but look at the Vikings. The existence internet access, cell phone networks, health care systems, and so on pretty much guarantees a sophisticated economy, which guarantees at least some level of economic difficulties. Basically, in short, there is no heaven on earth. zafiroblue05 | Talk 20:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should read utopia or even Utopia. The fact that a similar place has been sought for most of human existence and has not been found, or the people who claim to have found it are often seen as nutjobs suggest either: such a place does not exist or the wrong search criteria have been used. P.s. satellite TV is not usually a common element of classical utopias and may even constitute the undesirable oppression element. MeltBanana 20:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Patagonia in S. Chile looks like a pretty cool place (lots of tourism photos available online) - inhabited, but sparsely; awesome scenery; colonised by civilised Spaniards. Slight problem with Pinochet a few years ago, but I don't think you're going to find anywhere that's 100% perfect. Rentwa 20:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose a rich person could buy an uninhabited island and add all the modern technology, and a small population, and thus create your "heaven on Earth". Would that count ? A new volcanic island would be the best bet that no wars had ever been fought there before. Sealand might be an example, using a new man-made island. StuRat 20:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Switzerland would generally fit your bill, except of course the war part. Although the last one was the Sonderbund War in 1848, and it was a pretty boring one, too, with less than a hundred dead. Sandstein 21:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second that vote for Switzerland: lived there very contentedly for 11 years and I found it remarkably serene. Einstein is reputed to have said he'd like to be there if WW3 broke out, because it takes at least 50 years for anything to start happening in Switzerland. :) Unfortunately this also goes for its pick of recent films (usually a couple months behind the UK) but otherwise it is very modern and incredibly organised (particularly its clockwork-like public transport.) CptJoker 02:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer my wars boring. :) DirkvdM 07:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're in luck, then, as the coming war with Iran will require boring a hole into their bunkers to destroy their covert nuclear weapons program and kill the scientists working on it. StuRat 21:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on how literally you want it to have never known war, Iceland is about as close as you're going to get. It voluntarily placed itself under Norwegian rule (because of civil war in Iceland), it passed peacefully by treaty into Danish rule, the British occupation in WW2 consisted of a warship parking in the harbour without firing a shot purely to avert the legalism that it was part of Denmark, and the Nazis had invaded Denmark, its independence in 1944 was uncontested (and already practically de facto since the early 1900s), and it entered NATO - a military alliance - on the explicit understanding that it would never be required to develop a military of its own. The fifth highest GDP/capita in the world, with boundless geothermal energy, Scandinavian levels of crime and education, very stable democracy, the most free press in the world (Reporters without borders)... --Mnemeson 02:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that I live in such a place. New Zealand hasn't had any war or battle since the mid 19th century, doesn't really have any enemies (although in these days of global terrorism that's a relative thing), little major crime, mostly prosperous, a decent state-run health care system (although not as good as it used to be), good communications with the rest of the world and mobile reception over the whole of the country, and English-speaking (not that you said that was one of your criteria). Pollution is low, especially outside the major cities, and the scenery is world-class. See New_Zealand#International_rankings for how New Zealand compares with other countries on a number of scales. It isn't necessarily easy to get permission to immigrate to New Zealand, but if you are a skilled worker there'll probably be a job for you.-gadfium 03:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New Zealand is indeed a good choice. Costa Rica is another. No army and still they're left in peace, dig that! And some impressive natural beauty that they try to preserve because it's a source of income. They even have a place called Paraíso (Paradise). However, it's geologically active, with earthquakes and landslides and firearms are way too easy to come by (the only guns on display I ever saw on my travels were in Costa Rica).
So New Zealand still wins. I suppose not having any transportable natural resources would prevent invasion. If your greatest asset is serenity then an inviasion would destroy that and thus be pointless. And that goes for both New Zealand and Costa Rica. The Maldives and the like would also count if it weren't for the rising sea level. As for internet access, a telephone line is enough and where can't you get that? And satellite tv only requires a receiver (right?), but is that a criterium for heaven?
Iceland sounds good too, although I hate the cold and touching on the arctic circle means the winters won't be too nice. But speaking of non-transportable natural resources, they've got a very important one - thermal energy. Energy is an important prerequisite to sustain a modern utopia, and they've got loads of it, but invading the country for it would be pointless. So we want New Zealand with the climate of Costa Rica and geothermal activity of Iceland. Hold on, New Zealand has that too, but is it enough (and would you be willing to sacrifice the natural beauty aspect of it?).
And the Dutch get preference treatment when emigrating to New Zealand, so what am I still doing here? DirkvdM 07:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To my surprise, there are no places called 'heaven', but there are several places called Hell. DirkvdM 08:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scotland, or if you want some sun, Monaco, I think most of your answers would be european coutries, but also there's Australia. I wouldnt recommend moving to an LEDC, such as a south american, asian, or african country, as the difference in wealth of between the top and bottom half of the population is going to be very high, which can cause high crime rates, and corruption. And a lot of them have their hidden darker sides, eg. Maldives seems perfect, but then, they have apparently are extremely unwelocming to foreigners, rarely grant anyone permission to live there other than locals, and are one of the top persecutors of christians in the world. Philc TECI 11:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the winner is...(rumble)...: New Zealand (unless you make me change my mind ;) CG 21:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure you see the statue erected of Richard O'Brien in Hamilton. :) CptJoker 02:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No-one's mentioned the Palm Islands or The World Islands off the coast of Dubai. The islands are all less than five years old, while the country itself has never taken part in any major military conflict. Healthcare and access to technology are all world-class. Howard Train 05:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because there not built and there just a rubbish commercial project anyway, to make a nice looking place, they build as many houses as humanly possible on it, for maximum commercial return. Basically because its rubbish and fake. Philc TECI 13:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of sports

[edit]

How did humanity come up with most sports played today even though they have no seeming evolutionary roots? Take ice hockey, for example. What purpose would the skills required to hit a puck over several meters of ice into a net served for a band of Cro-Magnon hunter-gatherers? C. M. Harris Talk to me 21:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most sports are a test of the skills required to bring down prey - yes, the prey wasn't a hockeypuck, but the necessary hand eye coordination, reflexes and strength are all demonstrated by the participants.Adambrowne666 23:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe many started as a form of warfare or execution of prisoners. The "ball" was frequently the decapitated head of the enemy. StuRat 00:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I heard of that, but frequently? Anyway, it may have to do with people not growing up. Why do kittens play? Or adolescents of any species. Well, mammals anyway. Maybe it has to do with the mammalian need to develop the brain. And humans have a bigger brain, so they need to train it more. DirkvdM 08:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it's a way of demonstrating your viability as a hunter to potential mates - see, I can whack this puck with great accuracy - just as I'd whack a mammoth with my spear. Adambrowne666 12:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd whack a mammoth with a spear the way you hit a puck, you'd be the laghing stock of your hunting mates. And the mammoth. Maybe it would fall off a cliff laughing. Is that the idea? DirkvdM 05:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an attack skill, being able to hit a rock long distances with a stick is a pretty good plus. From that logic, of course, baseball, golf, lacrosse, and hockey all come from the same roots. Ice and skates are modern additions.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  07:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've ever seen a weapon that uses a technique remotely similar to that. And with a good reason. It's a difficult way to get your projectile to do what you want it to. Therein lies the challenge, and that's what makes it a sport. So there's a reason to think sports are not meant as hunting practise. Real weapons aren't used very often in sports, and javelin throwing is about distance, whereas for hunting precision would eb more important. Archery is the only exception I can think of. Unless you don't use any weapons of course, like in wrestling. Most other 'martial arts' (silly name) are to stylised to be realistic, but they may still have started as a real practise. DirkvdM 07:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; while I don't think it's likely a weapon would be designed with that function (though there may have been some sort of atlatl that could perform a similar feat) I do think that it's not far-fetched to imagine even a monkey that has gained the ability to use sticks as tools to use it to whack at loose rocks instead of throwing it or smacking their target directly.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  14:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing the point - the precise nature of the sport matters less than the fact that the competitors get a chance to demonstrate their athleticism - reflexes and strength etc - this being the skill-set that makes a mate attractive because it indicates he (she?) will be a good protector and provider.Adambrowne666 11:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

80:20 rule

[edit]

Is Wikipedia following the 80:20 rule? That is, do 20% of the editors/admins do 80% of the work? --Light current 21:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some Wikipedia types - writers: those who mostly write articles/make major contributions (very few); pedants: those who make minor edits (majority); Nazis: those who mostly delete (not many, fortunately, arguably a necessary evil); big-mouths: those who show off on the reference desk :D; and vandals. Any more? Rentwa 21:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but I fit into all of those categories! --Light current 00:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need one of those surveys that will give you a score: writer - 14%, pedant - 39%..., then a summary: 'You are an embittered loner with an obsessive hatred of politicians...'. Maybe someone could write one at one of those survey websites? The Wiki Type Test (WTT). Rentwa 00:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah a Wikipersonality quiz!--Light current 00:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's the Wikipediholic Test. But that only shows one aspect. DirkvdM 08:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual food

[edit]

Hi - I think it's Hinduism that has the idea of a kind of spiritual nourishment that is present in all food - it's this that is being offered to the gods when people make offerings of food at shrines. Can anyone tell me please what this spiritual food is called? I used to know, but the name escapes me now. Thanks. Adambrowne666 22:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sentient foods? —Keenan Pepper 01:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, that takes me closer - doesn't seem to mention the actual animating principle, but I should find it from that article - thanks again. Adambrowne666 12:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

literary songs

[edit]

I am looking for a list of popular songs that reference specific novels (i.e The Cure "Killing an Arab" referencing The Stranger). Can someone help me?


Thanks, Dawn

The Police: Wrapped Around Your Finger:
You consider me a young apprentice
Caught between the Scylla and the Charybdis
Hypnotized by you if I should linger
Staring at the ring around your finger..

Devil and the deep blue sea behind me.....
Vanish in the air, you'll never find me
I will turn your face to alabaster...
Then you will find your servant is your master...

And you'll be wrapped around my finger....
The Scylla and the Charybdis being from Homer's Odyssey. StuRat 00:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Police: Don't Stand So Close to Me:
Young teacher the subject
Of schoolgirl fantasy
She wants him so badly
Knows what she wants to be
Inside her there's longing
This girl's an open page
Book marking - she's so close now
This girl is half his age

Don't stand, don't stand so
Don't stand so close to me
Don't stand, don't stand so
Don't stand so close to me 

Her friends are so jealous
You know how bad girls get
Sometimes it's not so easy
To be the teacher's pet
Temptation, frustration
So bad it makes him cry
Wet bus stop, she's waiting
His car is warm and dry

(Chorus)

Loose talk in the classroom
To hurt they try and try
Strong words in the staff room
The accusations fly
It's no use, he sees her
He starts to shake and cough
Just like the old man in
That book by Nabakov

(Chorus)
(Chorus)
Where the book by Vladimir Nabokov is Lolita. StuRat 00:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lyrics are quite good. Who wrote them? Sting?--Light current 00:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article it was Sting.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  09:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of songs that retell a work of literature MeltBanana 00:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramble On and Battle of Evermore by Led Zeppelin both refer to Tolkein's Lord of the Rings. Rentwa 01:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Hansson has an album 'Lord of the Rings' and also 'Music inspired by Watership Down'. Iron Maiden have an album with songs about films, Piece of Mind (Iron Maiden album), and several of those must be novels as well. DirkvdM 08:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wuthering Heights (song) Durova 21:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest starting this as a wikilist, List of Songs that Reference Novels. It might get populated fairly quickly and it's an interesting topic... --Bookgrrl 22:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lady Elanor-Lindisfarne is The Fall Of The House Of Usher

Space Odyssy by The Byrds is the short story by Arthur C. Clark that is the basis for 2001-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 20:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2006_September_1&oldid=1143875152"