[Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created

[Daniel Hyman]

Hi, all -

More thread-fodder (ouch) about music online, sorted / assorted / unsorted:
http://nyti.ms/1QXETvb

Cheers and enjoy,

Daniel

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Daniel Hyman <daniel.a.hyman.0@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Michael,
>
> Staccato can be clear and distinct; it has an undeserved bad rap for
> harshness that to my ear is a separate thing (color not articulation). So
> your staccato comments were well taken.
>
> While an undergrad at Indiana U/Bloomington, I was introduced to Schenker
> as a master of analysis. He viewed the large-scale harmonic and melodic
> planning of works, as the reverse process of ornamentation/elaboration. So
> we would keep simplifying the structures of, say, a sonata, over longer and
> longer time scales, to reduce from a fully worked-out movement down to
> basic scale-step and chord progressions. If calling that hermeneutics isn't
> helpful (though I have seen that done in recent literature on Schenker) the
> term analysis suits just as well. What I was really trying to do was to
> draw a distinction between "interpretation" as performing musicians,
> dancers, builders, and cooks know it, adding complexity and depth to a
> plan, and "interpretation" as a theatergoer might attend Macbeth and come
> away with the reductive insight ("moral") that unbridled ambition can do
> great harm.
>
> As to personal ownership of creative works, that's a simpler question with
> a poem written in solitude, than with a symphony or opera or film. The
> latter type can be imagined by one person, but not fully realized or
> communicated without large and skilled teams. (One of the common reasons
> for those awful reviews of premieres, is that the performances fall far
> short of the composer's intentions. Patience, effort and luck in abundance
> are often needed for a work to ever be performed a second time.) We are
> both social creatures and individuals. Pigeonholing a creator as either one
> or the other can distort the creative process.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Daniel Hyman <daniel.a.hyman.0@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Larry,
>>
>> A pleasure to share ideas about music and how people experience it. I
>> have to think through most of your post, still, but as to Brahms: a classic
>> quote of his, "first ideas are good - they come from God." First ideas
>> were, inherently, not what he published (or ultimately, burned). By the
>> time he had worked through a piece and could present it, what he sent was
>> his work. However, he famously collaborated with colleagues (e.g., Joseph
>> Joachim about the Violin Concerto) and studied the works of forebears in
>> great detail. And his idiom and materials were clearly in the air of his
>> time.
>>
>> His scores, blueprints to use a metaphor instead of a buzzword, were
>> about as intentional as any composer's were, ever. Their contents, syntax,
>> and working-out were part of the shared understanding of his time. By the
>> time the Fourth Symphony was performed, the conductor and players did their
>> own work to make it come alive. So by the time the audience heard it, many
>> people had joined forces to convey it. In that context, I'm not sure what
>> the question about personal ownership really means.
>>
>> It being dinnertime in Kiev, message adjourned for now; be well!
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Daniel,
>>> Thank you for such insightful pondering on this theme. What ever is
>>> happening in this event as "ex=change" where "meaning" and "sense" are
>>> rising and falling within a theme [and changing aspects of the theme
>>> while
>>> remaining within the theme]] are happening THROUGH our shared expression
>>> and THIS aspect or THAT aspect of the theme being "disclosed/revealed"
>>> [not
>>> merely created as novel and new, but also not merely repeating a
>>> traditional theme]
>>> THIS process of revealing and concealing moving to the foreground,
>>> receding
>>> to the background] seems to be the mystery wirhin what you mentioned as
>>> "musical hermeneutics"
>>>
>>> As I "read" this revealing/concealing process it is not a tension of
>>> OPPOSITES [each side have an independent existence PRIOR TO BEING
>>> REVEALED
>>> and then next becoming synthesized.  It seems more like an enveloping
>>> movement of "text and context" that arise and fall , move to the fore or
>>> back SIMULTENEOUSLY within a "third space" that is more encompassing
>>> extending to INCLUDE the fore AND the aft.
>>>
>>> When the message Brahms sent was sent was it only his OWN MESSAGE?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 6:18 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Michael, Daniel,
>>> >
>>> > As I was reading this thread I was asking the same question about the
>>> > theme of "progressions" as deep pattern perceptions across modalities.
>>> > Michael wrote:
>>> >
>>> > "Yet for whatever reasons there don't seem to be attempts made to
>>> maintain
>>> > these connections, recognize that these are variations on a theme -
>>> that
>>> > perhaps are made richer by understanding the relationships between
>>> Lewin's
>>> > "progressions" and Cobb's "progressions."   It is the Internet that
>>> helped
>>> > me tie these things together - but when does the ability to tie ideas
>>> > together lead to a cancophany of sound that overwhelms rather than
>>> supports
>>> > our mission"
>>> >
>>> > This general question of "themes" that run through deep pattern
>>> > perceptions [as background that recedes towards invisibility] but is
>>> > NECESSARY for the various "progressions" to proceed.
>>> >
>>> > Daniel's answer that carries forward the conversation was thought
>>> > provoking:
>>> >
>>> > "So we navigate connections between works by seeing likeness and
>>> meaning in
>>> > them. People will listen for such meanings, just as we see faces in
>>> clouds
>>> > and constellations in the night sky - our minds seek them out even when
>>> > there is no original formative intent. As a musician I feel that people
>>> > with musical training, sensibility, and feeling should have something
>>> to do
>>> > with making meaningful connections happen"
>>> >
>>> > I want to highlight [bring to the fore] the comment "our minds seek
>>> them
>>> > [likeness AND meaning] OUT even when there is no formative INTENT"  The
>>> > question I play with is the relation of "intent" residing invisible AS
>>> A
>>> > THEME [in the way Michael used this term] with multiple "progressions"
>>> but
>>> > with the "moves" constrained and CONTAINED within this THEME.
>>> >
>>> > Now "intent" also may be perceived as the individual "listening for
>>> such
>>> > meanings" [progressions on a THEME] just as we see "faces in clouds"
>>> > [imaginal presences] that are NOT REALLY THERE and are "fictive" and
>>> > "created".
>>> >
>>> > The question of the link between "intent" that resides in the
>>> individual
>>> > imaginal realm AND the link that resides in deep pattern perceptions
>>> that
>>> > "run through" THEMES.
>>> >
>>> > "thinking" and "thought" as "intent" seems to have this PRO-found
>>> "link"
>>> > that has an imaginal ASPECT [creative, imaginal, phenomenological] and
>>> > also thinking and thought has this deep pattern recognition that
>>> > "progresses" WITHIN THEMES.
>>> >
>>> > I will pause here but I hear the same question in David's recent post
>>> on
>>> > "chess" and movement  of the pieces constrained and contained by
>>> NECESSITY
>>> > within THE "progressions" on a "theme".  This question of temporality
>>> and
>>> > duration [deep pattern time AND phenomenological in the MOMENT event
>>> time
>>> > that are LINKED.
>>> >
>>> > Daniel, I agree that people with musical training sense-ability and
>>> > feeling [for moods]  should have something to do [and say] with making
>>> > meaning connections happen.
>>> >
>>> > I would add a question exploring  "progressions" as having various
>>> > qualities of expression as they are EX-pressed with "intent".
>>> >
>>> > Progressions may include BOTH  spatial connections and temporal
>>> > connections at different "scales" [double meaning].: For example -
>>> >
>>> > * narrative dynamics expressing INTENT [as progression in dimensional
>>> > time and space which is the more common sense experience of
>>> > "progressions" THIS expression may include the "themes" that are
>>> invisible
>>> > in the background while the progressions are expressed in the
>>> foregoround
>>> >
>>> >  AND
>>> >
>>> > *  "event" dynamics that may have a different "quality" or "character"
>>> or
>>> > "value" within our expressions. in contrast to "narrative
>>> > dynamics" Expressions such as the event of "faces in the clouds" that
>>> "show
>>> > up" and have a quality of being immediate AND."im-pressionistic
>>> expressions
>>> > happening in the "moment".
>>> >
>>> > WHAT is the "link" and HOW do we understand the "intent" of these
>>> various
>>> > pro-gressions [in time and space]?
>>> >
>>> > I hope this stream of reflections is a "progression" on this theme and
>>> not
>>> > mere cacophony.
>>> >
>>> > Larry
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Daniel Hyman <
>>> daniel.a.hyman.0@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Hi, Michael -
>>> >>
>>> >> Now that I've read the Times Spotify article and re-read your posts, I
>>> >> think I'm a little closer to grasping your point.
>>> >>
>>> >> Classical musicians as I am and as I know them, often see parallels
>>> >> between
>>> >> music and wine. A work is not just a series of sounds - it's an
>>> >> experience,
>>> >> hopefully highly pleasurable, conveying character, origin, context,
>>> skill,
>>> >> refinement. Rarity and effort are not disadvantages but badges of
>>> value.
>>> >> And the "label" and atmosphere, terroir if you like, are key to
>>> >> understanding and enjoyment.
>>> >>
>>> >> The Spotify article seems (to me) not so much about music as about the
>>> >> music distribution industry. And that they are trying to go well
>>> beyond
>>> >> the
>>> >> idea of disintermediation. Can you picture millions of bottles of
>>> wine, of
>>> >> all different origins and levels of quality, hooked to the same
>>> industrial
>>> >> network of pipes? The consumer opens a tap (one for red and one for
>>> white,
>>> >> I guess) and has no idea what comes out. At first I felt that
>>> Spotify's
>>> >> concept of using common threads of mood could only be good for
>>> classical
>>> >> music, which is normally so underrepresented. But I didn't see any
>>> >> classical examples named in the article, so perhaps not.
>>> >>
>>> >> That said, Schubert and Mahler happily used Ländler (country waltzes)
>>> in
>>> >> their instrumental works, Bach adapted Palestrina's "stile antico" in
>>> his
>>> >> B
>>> >> Minor Mass, Stravinsky famously said that good composers borrow, while
>>> >> great composers steal, a very large part of the hip hop genre seems to
>>> >> consist of samples taken from earlier recordings, much of George
>>> >> Gershwin's
>>> >> "serious" work has flavors or styles of jazz, medieval French church
>>> >> composers overlaid popular tunes with liturgical words and learned
>>> >> counterpoint - music has been re-emerging in such ways for centuries
>>> if
>>> >> not
>>> >> millennia. But such expropriations have usually been taken as having
>>> >> meaning and purpose, drawing parallels in the manner of intentionally
>>> >> constructed similes and metaphors. I haven't been on Spotify lately to
>>> >> sample the connections described in the article. But these music
>>> >> distributors seem to be joining materials together in a way that seems
>>> >> pretty random, or at least superficial, to a musician.
>>> >>
>>> >> So we navigate connections between works by seeing likeness and
>>> meaning in
>>> >> them. People will listen for such meanings, just as we see faces in
>>> clouds
>>> >> and constellations in the night sky - our minds seek them out even
>>> when
>>> >> there is no original formative intent. As a musician I feel that
>>> people
>>> >> with musical training, sensibility, and feeling should have something
>>> to
>>> >> do
>>> >> with making meaningful connections happen.
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Glassman, Michael <
>>> glassman.13@osu.edu>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > Hi Daniel and Valerie and whoever else might be interesting,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I guess my original point was only using the idea of breaking down
>>> what
>>> >> > are perhaps artificial barriers between music as a vehicle.  That
>>> often
>>> >> > times differences between pieces of music, ideas, concept, research
>>> >> > methodologies (I'll get to that in a minute) are variations on a
>>> >> theme.  I
>>> >> > know emergence is a big topic, but is it possible what we are really
>>> >> > talking about re-emergence, take a created artifact that already
>>> exists
>>> >> and
>>> >> > applying it to a specific context, need, trajectory.  But by
>>> allowing
>>> >> > ourselves to maintain the ties to the earlier variations of ideas
>>> they
>>> >> > become richer and more easily manipulated in their re-emergence.
>>> If you
>>> >> > are listening to a pop tune and are then able to tie the chord
>>> >> progression
>>> >> > back to an earlier more complex jazz piece or classical piece it
>>> makes
>>> >> the
>>> >> > experience (at least for me) much more enjoyable.  The few times I
>>> have
>>> >> > been able to do it, or more often had it pointed out to me, it was
>>> >> > thrilling.  It means giving up a certain amount of ownership and/or
>>> >> > tribalism.  And I have been wondering if the Internet will break
>>> much of
>>> >> > that down because differentiation can so easily be put in the hands
>>> of
>>> >> the
>>> >> > user.  Or do we need these social categories to give our thinking
>>> >> > structure, to make sure it doesn't go flying in different
>>> directions.
>>> >> How
>>> >> > much is too much?  What is the right balance between the centripetal
>>> >> forces
>>> >> > of social categorization and the centrifugal forces of the Internet
>>> and
>>> >> the
>>> >> > choices it places directly in the hands of users.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Anyway this perhaps is something I have been struggling with over
>>> the
>>> >> last
>>> >> > few weeks.  For a number of reasons I have been looking into this
>>> new
>>> >> (or
>>> >> > not so new) phenomenon of design experiments.  I think some people
>>> on
>>> >> this
>>> >> > list may have more knowledge than me on it.  But for the life of me
>>> I
>>> >> can
>>> >> > tell the difference between design experiment methodology and
>>> Lewin's
>>> >> et.
>>> >> > al.'s early action research approach.  And reading Cobb's original
>>> 2001
>>> >> > article it seems both can be traced back to Dewey's book on Logic
>>> (I'm
>>> >> > pretty certain action research can and Cobb's article reads like a
>>> Cliff
>>> >> > notes of Dewey's book).  Yet for whatever reasons there don't seem
>>> to be
>>> >> > attempts made to maintain these connections, recognize that these
>>> are
>>> >> > variations on a theme - that perhaps are made richer by
>>> understanding
>>> >> the
>>> >> > relationships between Lewin's "progressions" and Cobb's
>>> "progressions."
>>> >> >  It is the Internet that helped me tie these things together - but
>>> when
>>> >> > does the ability to tie ideas together lead to a cancophany of sound
>>> >> that
>>> >> > overwhelms rather than supports our mission.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > So that is a long way of saying, how does this simple article on
>>> >> Spottify
>>> >> > makes us think about both the bood and bad of connections - the
>>> thrill
>>> >> of
>>> >> > recognizing the connection, the danger of being caught in the web
>>> >> (forgive
>>> >> > the pun)?  How do we navigate it?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Michael
>>> >> >
>>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>>> >> > From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>> >> > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=
>>> ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu]
>>> >> On
>>> >> > Behalf Of Daniel Hyman
>>> >> > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 3:24 AM
>>> >> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> >> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created
>>> >> >
>>> >> > As a music educator and (mainly classical) musician, I'm delighted
>>> to
>>> >> see
>>> >> > a musical topic here, even though I sense a web of somewhat misty
>>> >> questions
>>> >> > rather than one discrete one. Anyone's help in clarifying them or
>>> >> parsing
>>> >> > them out would be much appreciated.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Most Aprils (Jazz Appreciation Month in US schools) I have taught
>>> from a
>>> >> > 2000 PBS video, Preservation Hall: A Night In New Orleans. It
>>> >> intersperses
>>> >> > various early jazz genres, e.g. 12-bar blues, ragtime, marches,
>>> gospel,
>>> >> > with brief bios and interviews of the band members. Nary a mention
>>> of
>>> >> > activity structures giving refuge from oppression, though they are
>>> >> > generally literate and university- or conservatory- trained. What I
>>> do
>>> >> > glean is more along the following lines:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > - Certain instruments, such as trumpet, clarinet, or singing voice,
>>> >> > produce one tone at a time and thus lend themselves to melody
>>> (unless
>>> >> > combined in big-band format, which Preservation Hall is not). So one
>>> >> looks
>>> >> > elsewhere, to upright bass for chord root tones, and
>>> piano/banjo/guitar,
>>> >> > for instruments that can play 3 or 5 or 10 chord members at once.
>>> Those
>>> >> > musicians carry the role of setting the chord progressions the
>>> others
>>> >> fit
>>> >> > into or around.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > - As to some extent with classical genres such as symphony, ballet,
>>> >> opera,
>>> >> > or chamber music, the venue and the genre connect, and somewhat
>>> govern
>>> >> the
>>> >> > sound. Ragtime originated in brothels, blues in bars, gospel in
>>> >> churches,
>>> >> > marches gave celebrants or mourners a beat to set their pace.
>>> Listen to
>>> >> > "Just A Closer Walk With Thee" and you will hear chromaticism not
>>> wholly
>>> >> > unlike what Bach did with the simple Lutheran tune "Sleepers
>>> Awake". The
>>> >> > tempo resembles blues but the chord progressions are more complex.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > - Jazz is a family of styles; blues and its close relatives /
>>> >> descendants
>>> >> > are usually considered within that family.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > - Most accomplished musicians can switch styles; they may be famous
>>> for
>>> >> > one or another, but the exact style varies from song to song and
>>> >> > performance to performance.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Thoughts?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 3:18 AM, valerie A. Wilkinson <
>>> >> > vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > > Hi!  I am doing one of my dives from the abstractions of General
>>> >> > > Systems Theory.
>>> >> > > Actually, since I am always "on the fly" I don't have time to
>>> write a
>>> >> > > well-developed thought this time, either.
>>> >> > > When I read Aristotle's Categories at school, the first part of
>>> the
>>> >> > > work is essential. It sets up the frame. Essence or accident, a
>>> >> > > singular representative of a species - or the whole. (I can see
>>> that
>>> >> > > I've set up a bit of homework for myself) In that work, it sticks
>>> out
>>> >> > > like a sore thumb that the list of "categories", when we finally
>>> get
>>> >> > > around to it, is made of incidental and accidental "properties."
>>> >> > > Color and length don't tell one much about the animal.
>>> >> > > Being a generalist means I'm not going to dig in deep here.
>>> >> > > But in this short (so far) thread, Huw has replied with
>>> >> > > circumstances/environmental conditions being causal, whereas
>>> Michael
>>> >> > > starts out with looking for some fundamental sense in the
>>> progression
>>> >> of
>>> >> > chords.
>>> >> > > (Harmonics is an ancient thread)
>>> >> > > Michael's first observation, that categories, which "someone"
>>> sets up,
>>> >> > > seem provisional but are soon treated as set in stone...
>>> >> > > And he said, "Not only for Jazz ..." (Even right brain (RB)/left
>>> >> > > brain(LB) are provisional distinctions in an extremely specialized
>>> >> > > field.) Does "that's how humans think" cover the topic?
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > It's a rabbit hole. Gotta git before anyone asks me any questions!
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > -----Original Message-----
>>> >> > > From: xmca-l-bounces+vwilk=inf.shizuoka.ac.jp@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>> >> [mailto:
>>> >> > > xmca-l-bounces+vwilk=inf.shizuoka.ac.jp@mailman.ucsd.edu] On
>>> Behalf
>>> >> Of
>>> >> > > Glassman, Michael
>>> >> > > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 0:43
>>> >> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> >> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Hi Huw,
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Just off the top of my head I would say the blues more so.  I
>>> wonder
>>> >> > > if a music historian has ever taken an Activity Theory approach.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Michael
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > -----Original Message-----
>>> >> > > From: xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>> [mailto:
>>> >> > > xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf
>>> Of Huw
>>> >> > > Lloyd
>>> >> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 11:26 AM
>>> >> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> >> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The idea that our categories are created
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > The impression I have is that the roots of jazz stem from an
>>> abeyance
>>> >> > > from culturally perceived unpleasant/oppressive conditions and
>>> that
>>> >> > > patterns in chord progression would be derived from that activity
>>> >> > > structure, not from anything inherent in the music per se, i.e. an
>>> >> > orientation.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Huw
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > On 3 June 2015 at 15:53, Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > I found this article from the New York Times incredibly
>>> interesting
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/technology/personaltech/spotify-se
>>> >> > > > es
>>> >> > > >
>>> -a-future-where-music-genres-dont-really-matter.html?hp&action=click
>>> >> > > > &p
>>> >> > > >
>>> gtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=to
>>> >> > > > p-
>>> >> > > > news&_r=0
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > Having developed a very nascent knowledge of music late in life
>>> >> > > > because my daughter is studying to be a jazz guitarist and I
>>> don't
>>> >> > > > want to feel like a complete idiot when I discuss one of her
>>> >> > > > concerts with her - the article reminds me that we (or the media
>>> >> > > > trying to sell us stuff) creates categories that then for some
>>> >> > > > reason become set in stone until they aren't anymore (but the
>>> >> > > > decisions always seem to come from some place else) and the
>>> ways the
>>> >> > > > Internet may be changing that faster than many of us can
>>> understand.
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > If you read the first paragraph and the children of the writer
>>> going
>>> >> > > > through different types of music as a stream -  I wonder though
>>> if
>>> >> > > > the writer has it wrong, that if you went back and listened
>>> closely
>>> >> > > > you would find they shared chord progressions taken in different
>>> >> > directions.
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > I may have this wrong the way I'm talking about it (I can see my
>>> >> > > > daughter rolling her eyes in my mind), but jazz has its
>>> developing
>>> >> > > > chord progressions, blues has its chord progressions, they swap
>>> back
>>> >> > > > and forth, rock and folk and new wave takes from both and from
>>> >> > > > classical, and derivative pop takes and simplifies from all.
>>> >> > > > Perhaps there is a natural flow as they move between each other,
>>> >> > > > something we can never hear when there are strict category
>>> >> > > > boundaries.  The steaming music phenomenon makes these
>>> boundaries
>>> >> > > > transparent, almost as if they don't exist, so we traverse them
>>> >> > > > without thinking we are making some type of transgression.  How
>>> will
>>> >> > > > appreciation of music change when we don't have the gatekeepers
>>> >> > > > (using Lewin's original
>>> >> > > concept) determining what we listen to?
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > This of course is not just music.  In the academy there has been
>>> >> > > > greater and greater move towards particularization and strict
>>> >> > > > boundaries - AERA isn't one big conferences but hundreds of
>>> small
>>> >> > > > conferences.  Will the boundaries start to break down so we can
>>> see
>>> >> > > > and appreciate the "chord progressions?"
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > Interesting to me, wonder what others think.
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > Michael
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>