Dear NY Times,

Please stop referring to Sting as a renaissance man.

He has accomplished the same amount of things as lots of musicians and ranks no higher on anybody's list of musical geniuses than Phil Collins. No offense to Phil intended.

Also, I thought a real renaissance man was someone who was accomplished in more than one field. Sting has mastered the arts, but what has he done in the fields of medicine, or math, or animal husbandry? I'm not impressed.

Also, please stop describing his luxurious real estate in your stories about him. Sting does not equal his surroundings. His surroundings do not equal him. He can afford it, and that's all it says about him. It doesn't make him more interesting.

And God I hate it when he says things like this (in reference to being criticized for wanting to explore music other than "rock and roll"):

“It was frowned upon,” he said, “and that’s the whole ridiculous premise of rock ’n’ roll becoming this Taliban-esque, closed thing. ‘You can’t do that, you can’t do that.’ What’s the spirit of rock ’n’ roll except freedom — freedom to do whatever you want?”

You get criticized for being a wanker, not for being "creative."

He does the same thing he's complaining about to the classical musicians he's hired by assuming his music is something new and scary to them. All the classical musicians I know have more interesting musical sensibilities. They can handle you, buddy.

Grrr!

Every time Sting does something new, you guys write the same fawning article about how sexy and smart and good-looking he is. How he doesn't care when people call him pretentious. Can't you come up with something interesting to say about him? Doesn't your lack of interesting things to say mean that this article could've been half as long?

Irene Palma

P.S. My readers who are interested can find the NY Times story about Sting here. Enjoy.

P.P.S. I swear I'm done talking about Sting now.