The Alternate Classical Music FAQ Memo (Most recent update: 4/6/99)
John M. Wobus
"I have great faith in fools. 'Self-confidence', my friends call it."
-- Edgar Allen Poe
THE QUESTIONS:
(0) Is this a real FAQ?
(0A) Then how can I get a real classical music FAQ?
(0B) Why doesn't someone create a real classical music FAQ?
(0C) What happens if no one steps forward and does a real FAQ?
(0D) How can I make sense out of this document?
(0E) If I've already read this FAQ Memo, what should I read this time?
(0F) Who wrote this stuff?
(0G) How often do I have to see this thing?
(1) Why do 20th century composers write music that no one wants to
listen to?
(1A) How come no 20th century composers write music like the old days?
(2) I am interested in learning more about classical music. What
should I listen to?
(2A) I am interested in learning more about 20th Century Music. What
should I listen to?
(3) I heard a version of Mussorgsky's "Night on a Bald Mountain" that
sounded different. What goes?
(3A) Is it "Bare Mountain"? or is it "Bald Mountain"?
(4) How come no one recognizes Glenn Gould as the great pianist that he
was?
(4A) Are those grunts I hear on my Glenn Gould recording?
(5) Was Vladimir Horowitz a fake?
(5A) Is David Helfgott a great pianist?
(6) Why are we letting the pushers of period instruments take over?
(7) Which Bach piece is "Whiter Shade of Pale" taken from?
(7A) Which Chopin piece is "Color My World" taken from?
(7B) What pieces has Keith Emerson used?
(7C) What about that diamond commercial?
(8) What are the 10 best pieces of classical music?
(9) Wasn't Schoenberg conceited to think he could ruin music like that
and we'd let him?
(9A) On whom should we blame serialism? (a) decadent capitalism (b)
totalitarian marxism.
(10) I am interested in learning to play a musical instrument. Which
one should I learn?
(11) Why should music majors have to learn Music Theory?
(11A) Is knowledge of Music Theory required to truly appreciate music?
(11B) Well, if not for older music, how about 20th century music?
(11C) Does learning music theory impede your ability to "feel" the music?
(12) Wasn't Schenker crazy to think that all music is basically
variations on the same little piece?
(12A) You mean... ?
(12B) Who the hell is Schenker?
(13) How can people listen to (some type of music)? It all sounds
alike.
(14) Who is better: Bach or Beethoven?
(14A) What is the proper way to answer silly, undecidable questions
in newsgroups.
(15) What's the deal with temperament?
(15A) Why do string players play such high 3rd and 7th degrees of the
scale?
(15B) What is this about tuning a piano with "stretched" octaves?
(16) Can pianists change the tone of a single, unpedaled note without
changing its loudness?
(16A) Will digital pianos ever sound exactly like the real ones?
(17) How come different keys have different feelings?
(18) Is it PC to adhere to Wagner's political views?
(18A) Is it PC to listen to Wagner's music?
(18B) Is it PC to listen to the music of composers who influenced
Wagner?
(18C) Is it PC to tell Viola Jokes?
(19) What are the limits of the period "Early Music"?
(20) Is 4'33" music?
(20A) Is "Rap" music?
(20B) Is Salieri music?
(20C) Is Meyerbeer music?
(20D) What is the best recording of 4'33"?
(21) Is it OK to play old music on modern instruments?
(21A) Is it OK to play music written for one instrument on another
instrument?
(21B) Is it OK to play modern music on old instruments?
(22) Did Salieri murder Mozart?
(22A) What good is the movie Amadeus if it is so inaccurate?
(22B) What about that "Beethoven" movie?
(23) Why is some music unjustly neglected?
(24) I've figured out the secret to all music. Why can't you see that?
(25) Don't we need to split rec.music.classical?
(26) Will the next edition of "The New Grove" come out on CD-ROM?
(27) Was Tchaikovsky gay?
(27A) Was Schubert gay?
(27B) Has there ever been a gay composer?
(27C) Has there ever been a heterosexual composer?
(27D) Can you tell from the music?
(27E) Should we care if a composer is gay?
(28) Why does the chromatic scale have 12 tones?
(29) What is the fastest instrument?
(29A) If a viola and a grand piano are dropped off a building at the
same time, which would hit the ground first?
(30) Why give to the arts when there is unemployment?
THE ANSWERS:
(0) Is this a real FAQ?
It doesn't break any of the official written "rules under which all
FAQs must comply". But while a true FAQ passes along the answers that
the regulars are always posting in response to those pesky
constantly-asked questions, this memo passes along what some of
them are thinking as they read those questions.
(0A) Then how can I get a real classical music FAQ?
Compile one.
Well, it has been done before: Gabe Wiener did it, may he rest in
peace. To get a copy of his no-longer-posted-or-maintained FAQ, open
DejaNews (www.dejanews.com), go to Power Search, then search for
the string "rec.music.classical wiener faq romantic".
More recently (1998) Amy Gilchrist compiled and posted a Television
and Movie Classical mini-FAQ which used to be available via DejaNews
but I can't bring it up any more.
The "Online Classical CD Stores" FAQ at
http://indigo.ie/~pamolo/faq.html has information on that topic.
The periodically posted "Which Classical Music Newsgroup?" FAQ offers
advice on choosing which newsgroup to pose questions and comments
regarding different classical music subjects. To get it open DejaNews
(www.dejanews.com), then search for the string "rec.music.classical
faq which". However, it refers to a FAQ for rec.music.classical and I
have no idea what FAQ it refers to.
(0B) Why doesn't someone create a real classical music FAQ?
For the same reason you aren't doing it. The basic qualification for
doing a FAQ is to want one so badly that you are willing to put in the
time and effort to compile one.
(0C) What happens if no one steps forward and does a real FAQ?
You end up with drivel like this.
(0D) How can I make sense out of this document?
Picture a ":-)" after each sentence.
(0E) If I've already read this FAQ Memo, what should I read this time?
3/6/99: Since January I added question 30 but no answer. Other
questions that still don't have answers: 11A, 11B, 11C, 18C, 21B,
23, 24, 28.
(0F) Who wrote this stuff?
I accept the responsibility but not the blame. But I had help:
people have e-mailed me great stuff. Among them: Diane Wilson,
Phil Cope, and Margo Schulter.
(0G) How often do I have to see this thing?
I post it every January, April, July, and October.
(1) Why do 20th century composers write music that no one wants to
listen to?
Late in the 19th century, educated musicians decided that people were
listening to "Art" music for all the wrong reasons. At the same time,
composers began to feel like they were just composing the same old
stuff over and over again. Composers killed two birds with one stone
by starting to compose music which no one would ever listen to for the
wrong reasons.
Actually, believe it or not, within these constraints, today's
composers put a lot of attention into making the music listenable and
to writing something which will get played. The idea that the average
composer of contemporary music completely ignores his audience is
simply not true.
(1A) How come no 20th century composers write music like the old days?
There are those that do. You don't listen to them any more than to
the ones who compose noise.
(2) I am interested in learning more about classical music. What
should I listen to?
Ein Kleine Nachtmusik by W. A. Mozart.
If you want to listen to music that you might recognize parts of, then
listen to Pachelbel's canon in D, Bach's Brandenberg Concerto number
2/ 3rd movement, Bach's toccata and Fugue in D Minor for Organ, the
first movement of Beethoven's 5th symphony, Bizet's Suite from Carmen,
Brahms's Hungarian Dance number 6, Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker Suite,
Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture, Offenbach's Overture to Orpheus in Hades,
and Barber's Adagio.
If you REALLY have lots of time and desire, then listen to lots of
Haydn and Mozart symphonies until they get REAL predicatable. Then
listen to Beethoven's Symphony Number 1 several times until you figure
out what he did differently. Then go to Beethoven's Symphony Number
2. After you finish all 9, do the same to Berlioz's Symphony
Fantastique and Brahms's Symphony Number 1. Also start trying all the
other 19th century Symphonies. This procedure approximates what a
symphony-worshiper would feel is an ideal musical educational
experience. When you are discharged from the home for rest and
relaxation, you may well have a musical mind to rival any.
(2A) I am interested in learning more about 20th Century Music. What
should I listen to?
[Sorry--I haven't figured out the answer to this one yet. In the
mean time, listen to Stravinsky's Rite of Spring - ed]
A suggested listening order: Daphnis and Chloe, The Rite of Spring,
Wozzeck, then anything by Philip Glass. If you reach a point
when you no longer recognize what you are hearing as music, perhaps
it is time to backtrack.
(3) I heard a version of Mussorgsky's "Night on a Bald Mountain" that
sounded different. What gives?
Mussorgsky's buddy, Rimsky-Korsakov, who considered himself a better
orchestrator than Mussorgsky, did Mussorgsky the favor of
reorchestrating some of Mussorgsky's works for orchestra. We usually
hear the reorchestrated version. Lately, some have found Mussorgsky's
less conventional orchestration to be less mundane.
(3A) Is it "Bare Mountain"? or is it "Bald Mountain"?
Without Shrubs. It is a translation of "Noch' na Lysoi Gore" and we'll
just have to wait a while until the proper authorities give their stamp
of approval to a standard, official English translation.
(4) How come no one recognizes Glenn Gould as the great pianist that he
was?
Gould's genius is not the type that is evident to all listeners.
(4A) Are those grunts I hear on my Glenn Gould recording?
Yes.
(5) Was Vladimir Horowitz a fake?
If you think it is relevant that all instrumentalists perform on a
level playing field, as if concerts are like Formula Racing, then yes,
since Horowitz had his piano modified to have the kind of touch that
he liked. Try convincing a violinist to subscribe to such a "level
playing-field" principle. For vocalists, I believe some sort of New
Age body-transference would be involved.
(5A) Is David Helfgott a great pianist?
No. But he does a decent job on "Flight of the Bumblebee".
(6) Why are we letting the pushers of period instruments take over?
They aren't. It just seems that way to people who are annoyed by
period instruments and who thus consider every performance, recording,
or broadcast that utilizes period instruments as aliens trying to take
over the territory. People who play the period instruments often just
see themselves as adding variety to what we listeners can hear.
(7) Which Bach piece is "Whiter Shade of Pale" taken from?
It is not the same as any Bach piece, rather it is an original
composition by Matthew Fisher, the organist of Procol Harum. It's
similar to both the 2nd movement of "Air" from Bach's Suite for
Orchestra no. 3 in D major, BVW 1068 (AKA "Air on the G String"), and
the fourth movement of Bach's cantata "Sleepers Awake" ("Wachet
auf"). However, if listen to either of them and listen to "Whiter
Shade of Pale", you will find that the melody is not the same.
(7A) Which Chopin piece is "Color My World" taken from?
None. It doesn't even sound like Chopin.
(7B) What pieces has Keith Emerson used?
Among those he has noted, "Pictures at an Exhibition", "America"
from West Side Story (actually semi-attributed; he kept the title but
didn't give credit to Lenny), Toccata from Ginastera's 1st piano
concerto, "Mars" from the Planets. Didn't he also do the Hoedown from
Copland's Rodeo?
In the unattributed category, there's Lalo's Symphonie Espagnole (last
movement), and Bartok's Allegro Barbaro.
In the "I'm not certain if it is attributed" category: Leos Janacek's
"Sinfonietta".
(7C) What about that diamond commercial?
The music was written for the commercial. I believe that by popular
demand, the composer (Karl Jenkins) has expanded it into a piece
called "Palladio".
(8) What are the 10 best pieces of classical music?
Beethoven's 9 symphonies and Brahms's first.
If you don't like that answer, then Bach's 6 Brandenberg Concertos,
Beethoven's 5th and 9th, Mozart's last, and, well, uh, Beethoven's
Violin Concerto.
If you don't like that answer, . . .
(9) Wasn't Schoenberg conceited to think he could ruin music like that
and we'd let him?
Schoenberg, who is often quoted as saying his own new procedure for
composition will take over the world and last for centuries, has never
lived it down. His procedure, known as serial composition, specifies
that the composer write a line of 12 pitches, each different (where
pitches which differ by one or more octaves are considered
identical). Then the composition is made up of statements of this
line (called the tone row) which may be modified by reversing it
front-to-back, by transposing it, or by reversing it up-to-down, or a
combination (giving you 48 ways). The result is supposed to be in no
key at all, i.e., atonal. Many people hate the sound.
Animosity toward Schoenberg stems from people who imagine Schoenberg
simply said to himself "To mark my place in history, I'll use my vast
influence as a famous and respected musician to create an original way
to write music which will be so different and original that everyone
for centuries will look upon me as the father of music as it is
writ". Knowing what really happened will not change many minds about
the music, but doesn't make him look quite so conceited. Schoenberg
was one of a number of composers who saw that music was "loosening up"
so-to-speak as people like Wagner broke more and more long-standing
rules of harmony, and people like Debussy often just threw them out.
These young composers decided that the way things were going, music
would get to the point where you could place any combination of notes
in any context and it would be all right. They decided to explore
this trend and its "logical conclusion", the abandonment of any
reference to tonality. Look at them in a similar manner to the little
dog that runs ahead of you in the direction that it thinks you are
going to go (an obvious result of the idea that Innovation is a
necessary aspect of Good Art).
Anyhow, they started composing music which was deliberately atonal--
no major or minor chords or anything like that. This music was NOT
serial or written according to Schoenberg's later rules of
composition, but sounded so much the same as some of Schoenberg's
later music that you would really have to study it to tell the
difference. Anyhow, writing atonal music is not as easy as you might
think. If you should accidentally write a tonal chord or two, it
would stick out, ruining the "atonal sound", like putting a jazz chord
in the middle of a Mozart string quartet. And using any note too many
times in a short space of time made that note start seeming like the
tonic or the dominant. Thus you are forced to listen to what you have
written and rewrite to get rid of such unwanted effects. Schoenberg
started noticing that one way to help prevent such unwanted effects
was to avoid notes that just occurred in the piece. At the same time,
he was incorporating little (atonal) melodic motifs and (invented
atonal) chords into the music, using the same elements in different
places in the work, to make it a unified whole--just like you find in
tonal music--nothing new. Eventually, he stumbled upon the idea of
using the same sequence of the 12 different notes repeatedly, which
was a step towards achieving both goals. It did NOT result in
"instant music": a lot of work is still required to create music using
this method.
Schoenberg started out using his new procedure without telling anyone,
thinking that he would awe people with the quality and quantity of his
atonal composing. He finally wrote about it when someone else started
getting similar ideas and writing about them.
Schoenberg clearly viewed serial composition as a means to an end,
thus the rules were made to be broken as well as modified. Many who
haven't listened to the music imagine that his buddies Berg and Webern
wrote music that sounds alike. Actually, though they are known as a
"school", their music is not much alike at all and illustrate the
variety of ways serial composition is used. Berg, like Schoenberg,
saw it as a means rather than as an end, but he broke the rules more
than Schoenberg did, actually incorporating elements of tonality in
his music instead of striving for strict atonality. Webern, on the
other hand, experimented with slavish adherence to the rules, and
invented similar rules to control other aspects of the music like
timbre and dynamics. Since then, other composers have explored all
three approaches and then some. It is very much the case that no two
serial composers sound alike.
(9A) On whom should we blame serialism? (a) decadent capitalism (b)
totalitarian marxism.
Is it "obscure music by and for the educated elite"? Or on the other
hand, is it "a new music that treats all notes equally to counter the
music heretofore enjoyed at bourgeois concerts"?
[Come on, now, we can think of worse villains than these two groups.
Maybe we could blame serial killers. -ed]
(10) I am interested in learning to play a musical instrument. Which
one should I learn?
Recorder. If that is not what you meant, then flute.
I am assuming that piano is out of the question.
(11) Why should music majors have to learn Music Theory?
Why do soldiers dig holes? If you think your discussion of the merits
of theory class are going to influence your professors to change the
rules just for you, you have another thing coming. Your professors
had to take those courses.
Actually, this question is asked by numerous freshman music (and
voice) majors every year, and is also discussed among theory
professors. So if you are in the former category, study your theory
real hard and you can get to the point where someone (besides
freshmen) will listen to your objections. Be warned that many
musicians change their minds before they get to that point.
The real reasons include the fact that so many have taken the courses
or something like them that it is part of the culture, a culture that
you presumably want to join, or why didn't you just go to NYC and sign
up for private lessons with that money you are spending on college
tuition? Theory does include musical terminology, allowing you to
discuss aspects of music with other musicians that you would otherwise
find difficult to communicate. There are still probably open
questions about whether theory adds anything to appreciation or
performance. The problem is that there are candidate
counterexamples--fantastic performers who have had no formal theory
training. And trying to tie things up by listing the exact aspects of
music which none of these performers can handle, as well as prove that
they didn't get just a little formal training in that area, well, you
can't sew up the arguments either way.
You can look upon music theory as like studying the grammar of a
language. We study the grammar of foreign languages as we learn those
languages to speed the process and prevent gaps in our knowledge. We
study the grammar of our own language long after learning the
language, to make sure there are no gaps in our knowledge of the
language as well as to simply study some of what people have figured
out about what is going on when we read, write, speak, and listen
(unless we are behaviorists). In fact, a person can become a perfect
speaker of their own language and others without studying a bit of
grammar. When you take music in college, you will get a "rounded"
education going into greater depths into your own corner of the music
spectrum as well as learn something about other types of music.
Whether or not it is possible to grasp it all without any reference to
theory, it is clear that for many students, studying theory will speed
the process as well as reveal and fill in some knowledge gaps.
(11A) Is knowledge of Music Theory required to truly appreciate music?
(11B) Well, if not for older music, how about 20th century music?
(11C) Does learning music theory impede your ability to "feel" the music?
[Yes, it is wondered whether prospective fans of twentieth century
music should study twelve tone composition and set theory. To some
degree you have to do this stuff if others do it. You could argue
that fans of ancient Greek sculpture don't necessarily study either
the science of the stone or the engineering required to shape it:
that there's something left to admire and analyze even without
mastering those disciplines. On the other hand, if all your co-fans
study a particular discipline that addresses an arguably obscure part
of an art and you wish to converse with them about that art, then you
are at a disadvantage if you haven't studied that discipline also.
--ed.]
(12) Wasn't Schenker crazy to think that all music is basically
variations on the same little piece?
Well many melodies have obvious ways that they could be simplified,
i.e. they look like elaborations of some simpler melody. First off,
if there are ornaments, leaving them out would leave you with a
simpler, "more basic version" of the same melody. There are often
parts of the written melody that look the same shape as ornaments and
could be left out with similar consequences. Naturally, if you keep
simplifying a melody this way, ad absurdum, then all melodies will
eventually start looking alike (though perhaps you have to get down to
a single note). Schenker liked to do this and proposed a little three
note melody (the first 3 notes of Three Blind Mice(, or perhaps more
to the point, the last three notes of that melody)) which he thought
was always there just before any more reducing would yield just a
single note. He thought this was a Significant and Important Element
of Music which conventional musical analysis (e.g. spelling the
chords, writing in the Roman Numerals) overlooked.
Some of the Schenker lovers like to quote him by chapter and verse
while others feel he went a bit overboard at times but still like some
of his general ideas. His haters wonder why you should be able to
look at a piece of music and pick out three of the melody notes as
being the most important, as if you could save time by leaving all the
other notes out. Those people should realize that the Schenker Lovers
think the manner in which the little melody is extended into something
long is the interesting stuff. They don't think the little 3-note
melody has any interest whatsoever.
(12A) You mean... ?
Yes. Take the first the notes of "Three Blind Mice", give them a
one-five-one bass line, and if you then elaborate them in a particular
way, you have the finale to Beethoven's ninth. Elaborate it another
way and you have the Pachelbel Cannon. And another way ...
(12B) Who the hell is Schenker?
A little German professor of music who had very weird ideas about
music and whom lots of Music Theory Professors believe to be the
"(Albert) Einstein of Music Theory". A result of this has been new
wonderful theory curriculums which incorporate Schenkerian Theory, so
depending upon which music school you attend, you may be learning
Schenkerian Theory (perhaps not realizing that fact) or the old
stuff. Therefore, different graduates from different music schools
may have learned wildly different things in their music classes. The
ones who learned Schenkerian Theory, of course, will succeed as
musicians more often than the ones who didn't.
(13) How can people listen to (some type of music)? It all sounds
alike.
About 90 percent of the criticism of different music genres that I
have ever heard has been by people who claim that it all sounds
alike. This has been applied to all genres, usually by people who
haven't listened to the genre very much.
(14) Who is better: Bach or Beethoven?
Sometimes you will hear ridiculous "Is Too!"/"Is Not!" arguments about
such questions as this. To avoid lowering ourselves to such, we will
use absolutely objective criteria to settle this:
Bach Beethoven
(a) Is he still played a lot? yes yes
(b) Do musicians love to play him? yes yes
(c) Does the general "classical
listener" love to listen to him? yes yes
(d) Do critics and the writers of
programs and record jackets gush
all over him? yes yes
(e) Are his works often in the top
10 in classical listener polls? yes yes
(f) Does his music dominate the
repertoire of any particular
instrument? yes no
(g) Is his music often used as prime
examples in the study of basic
music theory even to this day? yes no
(h) Has the majority of his music been
played continuously since his
life rather than requiring a
revival? no yes
(i) Was he world famous in his own day? no yes
(j) Was he respected as a top-grade
performer? yes yes
(k) Was his music considered to be
"modern" in his own day? no yes
(l) Do other composers respect him? yes yes
(m) Did he develop/invent forms that
were to absolutely hypnotize
composers into emulating him
for a century or more? no yes
(n) Has his music remained famous for
over 200 years? yes no
(o) Was he also a fine improviser? yes yes
Now we can answer this question once and for all: Beethoven
got 12 yesses to Bach's 11. Sorry, Mr. Bach.
(14A) What is the proper way to answer silly, undecidable questions
in newsgroups.
If it weren't Bach and Beethoven, some might consider question
(14) silly and undecidable. Since some people actually ask
similar questions about less important issues, we ought to have
a strategy for dealing with them. I won't say which strategy is
right, but here are a few that various participants apparently adopt
when answering postings on one of these threads:
(a) Post evidence to support your view and try to win the debate.
(b) Post very long messages with each sentence of your debating
opponent's post, giving line-by-line rebuttals.
(c) Call the previous poster stupid or insulting names.
(d) Complain about the thread as a bandwidth-waster.
(e) Propose a new newsgroup: rec.music.classical.talk
(f) Ignore the postings as being childish.
(g) Rephrase and rewrite what you said before because obviously
the idiot didn't get it.
(h) Tell the previous poster that he/she should listen to the
music more carefully; then they would switch to your own view.
(i) Treat the give-and-take as a mock debate and use it as an excuse
to trot out some generally interesting related tidbit or followup
question.
(15) What's the deal with temperament?
A lot of professional musicians think there are basically two
tunings: "equal" and "correct". Many of them cannot recall if the
proper term for correct tuning is "just" or if it is "mean tone".
Actually, there is no such thing as "correct" tuning.
There are basically four tunings & temperaments:
Just - has nice (beat-free) major 3rds and 5ths. It is hard
to play much with it without getting into different versions
of notes (i.e., sometimes when you play an A-above-middle-C
it has a higher pitch than other times).
Pythagorean - sacrifices the major 3rds in favor of the 5ths.
5ths are lovely. 3rds are atrocious (except perhaps to some
string players and to some fans of medieval music).
Mean Tone - sacrifices the 5ths in favor of the major 3rds.
3rds are lovely (except to string players). 5ths are not
too bad, but worse than in the other tunings and temperaments.
Equal Tempered - compromises between 5ths and 3rds: neither is
nice, but neither is as bad as it could be.
The latter three allow more modulation than the Just without getting
into so much business of multiple versions of the same note.
Pythagorean does make you choose between making some keys almost
unlistenable and starting to get into the "multiple version of a note"
problem. Equal Tempered allows the most freedom of modulation,
something which has been used so much in music that many consider it
the "only way". Mean Tone is known mainly as a way to play old
music. String quartets and Choirs tend to play equal, just, or
pythagorean according to circumstance. Pianos are basically "equal"
but if you want to learn some real neat stuff, find out how a piano is
REALLY tuned (see 15B). Harpsichords, clavichords, early pianos, and
such used "well" temperaments, which are close to equal, but can have
enough difference to make different keys sound a bit different.
Organists will sometimes tell you about even more tunings &
temperaments as will the users of synthesizers, the first instrument
to give the performer a practical (push-button) choice in the matter.
(15A) Why do string players play such high 3rd and 7th degrees of the
scale?
Melodic half-steps sound pretty neat when they are real small.
Playing a stringed instrument that is tuned to untempered 5ths
encourages the use of very high thirds (see 15 on "Pythagorean
Tuning"). For example, if you play a C-scale in first position on a
violin (with no vibrato: vibrato muddies things up & hides a lot of
this: that may have some influence on its popularity), then if the B
is played at a pitch that sounds a reasonable perfect fourth with the
open E string, then it will be quite a bit higher than the B that
would form a "Just intonation" major 3rd with the G of the scale. In
Helmholtz's book on acoustics (in an appendix) he shows a measurement
of the pitches of a major scale played by a professional violinist; he
found that the 7th degree was even higher than can be explained by the
violinist's adherence to "Just" 5ths and 4ths. Therefore my
contention that they are played that way because they sound good.
(15B) What is this about tuning a piano with "stretched" octaves?
Piano tuners tune the piano in such a way that two notes ostensibly
an octave apart are tuned to be slightly more than an octave apart.
I've heard two reasons cited:
-It is part of a small compromise between making the octaves and the
5ths sound good. Equal temperament demands that 5ths be a little
small. If the octaves are compromised, then the 5ths can be a little
closer to being "Just".
-In "real-world strings" (as opposed to imaginary strings of perfect
flexibility and infinite thinness) the partials above the first are
higher than the simple mathematical relationship between harmonics we
all know and love (e.g. the 2:1 ratio between the first and second
harmonics), and the bigger, heavier, and stiffer the wire, the
greater the mismatch. If you play a low note on a piano and listen
long enough to hear the partials, you are likely to be surprised how
sharp the upper ones are. By tuning the ostensible octave to be a
tiny bit more than an octave, the higher note more closely matches
the 2nd harmonic of the lower note. I.e., perfection cannot be
achieved because in this case it does not exist, but the most
effective-sounding compromise is to stretch the octave just a
little.
I'm not sure if the first reason is sound: if it is true, the same
reasoning would apply to any equal-tempered instrument.
(16) Can pianists change the tone of a single, unpedaled note without
changing its loudness?
This is one of those interesting questions in that each answer has
adherents who are so sure of their position that they think the whole
question is silly. To some degree, you find scientists taking up one
position and pianists the other.
There are scientists who have taken the trouble to pose blindfold
tests to find out. The experiments showed that the only way a
blindfolded listener could distinguish a note played by a "believer"
pianist from that of a little machine that played a note by dropping a
weight on it were if the notes had a different volume. There are also
scientists who have developed theories under the assumption that the
answer is "yes". Some of the "believer" theories are:
-The way your finger presses/strikes the key affects the mechanical sounds
that accompany the note.
-The path of the hammer is not quite fixed in that the hammer-shank is
not perfectly rigid (as is also the case for other parts of the
action). The flex imparted to the hammer-shank is under control of
the pianist who controls the instantaneous acceleration of the key
over the time in which the key is mechanically attached to the
hammer. This would change the position and angle at which the hammer
strikes the string--slightly. I have trouble with this particular
theory because it doesn't seem that it would offer the kind of
consistency across different pianos that believers would assert.
(One source of info on what has been done on these theories is the
*Journal of the Acoustic Society of America*). Some of the
"non-believer" explanations are:
-The factors that *are* accepted to be under the pianists' control:
use of the pedals, and especially, the release of the notes that
precede or overlap the note in question.
-The listener's mental state created by the preceding music.
-There is a maximum volume for each tone of a piano above which the
only additional sound you can get is the initial percussive sound.
Thus, to some degree, you can control how much percussive sound
you get independent of the volume of the succeeding tone. Note
that this is only for very loud notes.
-Other factors affecting the listener's mental state: mood, the way
the performer looks, the name of the performer, etc.
Most musicians will claim that the perception of music is influenced
by psychology. It is just that we are often very certain that such
effects aren't coloring our *own* perceptions.
(16A) Will digital pianos ever sound exactly like the real ones?
Digital pianos that use digital sampling sound pretty good: when you
press a key, they play the equivalent of a CD recording of that note on
a real piano. Absolute perfection would require that the piano have a
recording of each of the 88 notes, i.e. no cheating by using the same
recording for a bunch of "nearby" notes. There is also the issue of
whether the digital piano's sound characteristics change when the
piano is tuned a few cents flat or sharp or whatever, but we'll figure
that's a special case to be addressed later. Also, a real piano does
not have perfect strings and is not perfectly in tune. How a digital
piano should address this, I have no idea.
Since a piano note's sound characteristics depend upon the note's
loudness, perfection also requires that an array of recordings be
available for each note, one for each possible loudness. We imagine
that gradations in a piano note's loudness are infinite, but naturally
we'd be happy if the gradations are simply so small that blind tests
don't allow any listeners to tell them apart. I'm guessing a thousand
recordings per note would be more than sufficient, particularly if
decent interpolation were used to fill in the gaps in the loudness
gradations.
Another tricky issue is the tail end of the note, i.e. what happens
when the key is lifted and the damper hits the string. The note falls
off much more quickly than it otherwise would, but the termination is
not instant. The way in which the note falls off would depend upon
how loud the note was played and how long it has lasted. The piano
could have a bunch of recordings of this process and maintain
readiness to play the proper recording at any moment when the musician
terminates the note. The termination also depends upon the velocity
at which the damper is allowed to return to the string, but we
won't go there.
Another issue is the way in which notes interact when played
together. When you play a note, other strings which are allowed to
vibrate will do so, which is called sympathetic vibration. Because of
this, two notes played together are not quite the same as "a sum of
the individual notes". You can demonstrate sympathetic vibration on a
real piano by playing middle C staccato twice at forte. The first
time play it alone, the second time play it after quietly depressing
the C an octave below middle C and while holding it down. When you
find a digital piano that recreates the sound that a real piano
produces when you do this, you know its design engineers have started
simulating the effects of sympathetic vibration.
(17) How come different keys have different feelings?
Or "How come sharp keys sound brighter and flat keys darker?"
Some reasons put forth:
-People with absolute pitch form associations in their mind
between a key and a feeling. There could be such a correlation
between different people's feelings because of cultural influences.
-People WITHOUT absolute pitch form associations in their mind between
the NAME of a key and a feeling. This is not the reason that I
associate feelings with keys because I would know if such
extra-musical psychological factors were affecting my judgement.
Psychology might affect other people, but of course, I'm immune.
-No two notes on a musical instrument have the exact same timbre.
Perhaps this gives some listeners enough sense of absolute-like
pitch that they can associate keys with feelings.
-Before the days of equal temperament, each key had its own unique
"tuning"--there were subtle differences in the patterns of intervals
that made up each key. Some keys had sweeter sounding intervals than
others. This might be the root of some of the cultural notions we
have. On some instruments, this is still the case. For example,
string players might tend to play in tunings that emphasize the
pitches of the open strings.
-It may be that the feeling is "relative"--that people associate one
feeling with modulations towards adding flats (or subtracting sharps)
and a different feeling with modulations going the other way.
-Everyone has absolute pitch, but most don't know it. Unconsciously
they've associated these moods with absolute pitches. [If this
is true, perhaps you can train yourself to state the key of a pitch
after you determine its mood. -ed]
And I've heard some people assert that it is only in tunings and
temperaments outside equal temperament that keys do indeed have such
feelings.
(18) Is it PC to adhere to Wagner's political views?
No.
(18A) Is it PC to listen to Wagner's music?
Some people have suggested that they can listen to, enjoy, and perhaps
even admire Wagner's music even though they don't agree with his
politics. Such people ignore that fact that music is potent stuff and
that Wagner's music might have subtle influences on its listener's
political views (Wagner was, among other things, an antiSemite).
A subtler problem that doesn't receive as much attention is the
problem of people who listen to the music of composers who were
influenced by Wagner. This is a real problem because Wagner is often
credited as being a pioneer in the development of the 20th century's
not-so-tonal musical styles as well as a large influence in the
development of opera. So if you would rather be safe than sorry, you
may wish to give up 20th century music and post-Wagnerian opera all
together (maybe this is what a lot of people have done?) If you wish
to tread on such dangerous ground, perhaps you should start your
decision process as to which music to listen to with a careful study
of the evolution of musical style during and after the time of Wagner
with a special attention to Wagner's particular techniques and which
composers have directly or indirectly adopted them.
(18B) Is it PC to listen to the music of composers who influenced
Wagner?
After we work out the answer to this question, we will address the
question: "Is it PC to listen to the music of other composers
influenced by composers who influenced Wagner?"
(18C) Is it PC to tell Viola Jokes?
[Thought for the day: What is the difference between a good viola joke
and a bad viola joke? I don't know the answer, but I think it
involves whether the joke includes flames, axes, guns, IQ tests, and
the like. -ed]
(19) What are the limits of the period "Early Music"?
For many people, Bach is early music. For others, anyone before
Bach. For many, Early Music is anything earlier than they would want
to listen to. Others like some sort of music that they classify as
Early Music and would like to have it encompass all their favorite
periods. For example, some might say that anything before "Rite of
Spring" is early music.
(20) Is 4'33" music?
Depends on the context. I know what I'm talking about too--I'm well
versed in this work--I can play it in my sleep.
(20A) Is "Rap" music?
(20B) Is Salieri music?
(20C) Is Meyerbeer music?
No comment. No comment. No comment. Also no comment about New Age,
John Williams, Andrew Lloyd Weber, Tchaikovsky, or any Minimalist
Music. No fair interpreting "no comment" as an implied "yes" or
"no".
(20D) What is the best recording of 4'33"?
[This question wins in the category of "Best new rec.music.classical
question of Spring 1995". -ed]
Music Minus All.
[Someone suggested to me "Christopher Hogwood's performance on
original instruments", no doubt a fine choice, though I'm not sure
'on' is the correct preposition in that phrase. Old joke: Restaurant
customer: "I'll have coffee without cream"; Waitress: "We're out of
cream so you'll have to have it without milk". I think this joke has
something to say about the validity of my performing 4'33" upon the
oboe, but I'm not certain. -ed]
[I did hear about the harried parent of several noisy preschoolers who
had managed to teach them to perform 4'33" and is now desperately
looking for longer works of a similar nature. OK, OK, I'll shut up.
-ed]
(21) Is it OK to play old music on modern instruments?
I once tried playing Bach's Prelude in C (WTC I) on a piano and it
sounded OK to me. Some of the fugues sounded a bit muddy.
(21A) Is it OK to play music written for one instrument on another
instrument?
Heavens no! Not if you want to follow the composer's intentions.
Of course, we're only referring to those cases when the composer
intended that the composition be played only with the instrument(s)
he/she listed on his/her score.
Some worry about the fact that Bach fugues are part of the repertoire
of today's pianist. It is true that the modern piano and its sound
were developed in the latter half of the 19th century, and that
today's piano's sound is pretty far removed from the instruments Bach
was familiar with when he was writing his fugues. On the other hand,
pianists were playing Bach's fugues during the time that the piano was
developing into its current form, thus you could argue that the sound
of a Bach fugue played upon the piano was one of the many influences
upon the ultimate design of the piano we know and love, i.e. the piano
was developed (in part) as an instrument upon which to play Bach
fugues.
[I don't know what this means except that while it may or may not be
kind to Bach to keep his fugues away from the piano, it may well be
unkind to the piano (and its developers) to deprive it of one of its
raisons d'etre. On the other hand, it may not. -ed]
(21B) Is it OK to play modern music on old instruments?
[Heck, I don't know. -ed]
(22) Did Salieri murder Mozart?
No, but it's a nice old rumor which has been fueled by more than one
work of fiction.
(22A) What good is the movie Amadeus if it is so inaccurate?
Some say it worked as a play better than as a movie. Plays, more than
movies, deal with abstract ideas, and Amadeus's characters portrayed
the idea "competent hack meets inspired genius; finds wanting; feels
very frustrated" rather than factual episodes in history. Cinema
demands realism: movie-makers have the power to take you there, and
consequently we all walk into a movie theatre expecting to be
transported somewhere. Starting with a play and filling in all the
blanks with detailed sets and staging can create something definitely
weird.
(22B) What about that "Beethoven" movie?
[We don't even want to get into that! And we especially don't want
to get into the subject of movies about Liszt. -ed]
(23) Why is some music unjustly neglected?
[Don't have a good answer yet--how about "too few hours in a
a listener's lifetime"? -ed]
(24) I've figured out the secret to all music. Why can't you see that?
[A related question others ask themselves is: "Why can't a newsgroup
be created as a home for the discussion of this guy's theories since
he seems to be trying to turn this newsgroup into that very thing.
--ed.]
(25) Don't we need to split rec.music.classical?
[I think the proper answer is "Again?" -ed]
(26) Will the next edition of "The New Grove" come out on CD-ROM?
Would they sell 10 copies at $200 for each copy they sell to a library
at $2000? 100 copies at $20?
[Editor's note: I haven't seen anything about a new edition at
http://www.groveartmusic.com/, but they do have the 1980 edition
in paperback]
(27) Was Tchaikovsky gay?
(27A) Was Schubert gay?
(27B) Has there ever been a gay composer?
(27C) Has there ever been a heterosexual composer?
[Editor's note: I promised myself that I would be willing to include
even the most controversial questions, displaying a willingness to
verbally slither out of answering even the hardest ones; thus when a
helpful reader suggested some of these questions, it was an offer I
couldn't refuse]
Answer: I don't know. There is a lot of online speculation on these
questions often including citations from experts and from letters of
the composers in question. In the case of composers as is the case
for all historical figures, these questions are made difficult
because:
-while there are people today who feel a need to hide their particular
sexual preference, there have been times and cultures where such a
need has been felt to an even greater extent.
-in different times and cultures, people expressed their sexual and
their non-sexual feelings in varied ways: the very same speech,
writing, or action indicates different things depending upon the time
and culture. Furthermore, before agreement can be reached as to
relevance of such evidence associated with a particular individual,
there needs to be some agreement on the culture itself and its modes
of expression. All this can make answering such questions
difficult.
-some writers and researchers have shown a tendency to project their
own sexual preference (or their own idea of an acceptable or
desirable sexual preference) upon the historical figures whom they
respect (or conversely, a sexual preference that they do not care for
upon a historical figure whom they do not respect). In some cases,
evidence has been ignored, discounted, hidden, or even destroyed.
It is easy to extrapolate from what we can see in modern society that
among the historical figures whom we know and respect (including
composers) are some who were gay. Given the factors cited above, it
is often difficult to be conclusive about which ones.
(27D) Can you tell from the music?
I'm not aware of any carefully documented tests. I gather that there
are those who upon hearing a report of the sexual preference of some
composer whose music they know are struck by a feeling that some
aspect of their own perception of the music has been explained.
There are also those who feel something has been explained when they
hear about other (non-sexual) aspects of some composer's life.
(27E) Should we care if a composer is gay?
There are a number of things that make people care about the sexual
preferences of composers. Among them:
-They have a preference or a passing desire to hear music specifically
composed by someone of a particular sexual preference.
-They consider a detailed interest in the personality of composers to
be a factor in their own understanding of the the composers' creations
and creative process.
-They feel that by publicizing some well-known person's sexual
preference, the degree of respect that society as a whole feels for
that well-known person will influence society's view of the sexual
preference itself. Or vice versa.
-They have a particular opinion about some sexual preference and feel
a desire to know what well-known people have that sexual preference.
-They feel an obligation to some segment of society that has a
particular opinion about some sexual preference, that that group be
made aware of which well-known people have that sexual preference.
-They are nosy.
(28) Why does the chromatic scale have 12 tones?
[Well? Something to do with the closeness of various ratios between
small integers to smaller integer powers of the 12th root of 2?
Or is it perhaps better to say it was simply defined that way?
I doubt all the debate that this question could generate would
fit in this memo -ed]
(29) What is the fastest instrument?
It is not clear that this question, which was posed on
rec.music.classical in Fall of 1996, has a straightforward answer.
(29A) If a viola and a grand piano are dropped off a building at the
same time, which would hit the ground first?
Ah, a related and more specific question which was posed to the very
same group just a short time later. And it not only DOES INDEED have
a straightforward answer, but also aptly illustrates the ability of
physics to illuminate the study of musical instruments. The most
naive of answers of course is that the grand piano hits first since it
is heavier. Less naive would be a reference to Galileo's discovery
that heavy and light objects fall at the same speed. For example, if
you dropped two spherical objects, one being an inflated beach ball
and the other a ball of solid lead of the same diameter, they would
indeed fall at the same rate. But if you tried the same experiment
outside of a vacuum chamber, then you would find that the resistance
to the spheres' downward velocity imposed by the atmosphere affects
the result.
It takes more force to move that lead ball than that beach ball (you
can verify this by placing them on a flat surface and trying to move
them yourself). This applies to the earth's downward force as much as
any force applied to the balls: the more massive the object, the more
force required. By fantastic coincidence, the gravitational force on
an object also happens to be exactly proportional to its mass, so
everything balances out, leading to Galileo's finding. However, the
small amount of force pulling the beach ball toward the earth is
significantly counteracted by the resistance introduced by the
atmosphere even before the beach ball has picked up much speed. In
contrast, the lead ball, whose air resistance will be the same as the
beach ball's, attains quite a bit of speed before that resistance has
much significance in comparison to the gravitational force. Thus
given the same shape, the heavier object falls faster and for objects
of the same weight, the speed at which they fall depends upon their
shape.
Now while a grand piano is much heavier than a viola, its larger size
suggests it will meet with more air resistance, so the question comes
down to: is it the superior weight of the grand piano or the superior
streamlining of the viola that wins the day? Given that grand pianos
are built out of significant portions of tree-trunk along with a good
bit of iron and steel, my money is on the piano.
[The short explanation would be that the force of gravity upon the
piano is not counteracted by wind resistance to the same degree as is
that upon the viola.]
(30) Why give to the arts when there is unemployment?
[In early 1999 this question is shooting for Usenet's "longest
discussion" record.]
Note: Everything in this document is either objective fact or
controversial opinion. Factual corrections welcome.
About the author: While the author does not consider himself to be
humor-impaired, his family will readily describe him as "easily
amused", no doubt recalling his assertion that the funniest joke in the
universe is Michael Flanders' line in his introduction to one of his
songs: "Some will say this song is irrelevant; but it's not
irrelevant: it's 'A Hippopotomous'". The second funniest is of course
the single word, "Tricky", and the third was uttered by Carol Burnett
in the comedy sketch entitled "The Lonely Asparagus".
Posted Tue Apr 6 16:19:49 EDT 1999
CONSTANTIN MARCOU
"John M. Wobus" wrote:
Alternative FAQ Memo for Classical Music"I have great faith in fools. 'Self-confidence', my friends call it."
-- Edgar Allen PoeTHE QUESTIONS:
(0) Is this a real FAQ?
Of course not!
(0A) Then how can I get a real classical music FAQ?
Stand on your head, throw a pinch of salt over your shoulder, and click your heels three times.
(0B) Why doesn't someone create a real classical music FAQ?
Why don't you?
(0C) What happens if no one steps forward and does a real FAQ?
This.
(0D) How can I make sense out of this document?
With your Captain Lightning Secret Decoder Ring.
(0E) If I've already read this FAQ Memo, what should I read this time?
Classics Illustrated.
(0F) Who wrote this stuff?
HIHI
(0G) How often do I have to see this thing?
Often.
(1) Why do 20th century composers write music that no one wants to
listen to?
To be left alone.
(1A) How come no 20th century composers write music like the old days?
The disappearance of opposable thumbs.
(2) I am interested in learning more about classical music. What
should I listen to?
Tommy Roe.
(2A) I am interested in learning more about 20th Century Music. What
should I listen to?
Tommy Roe.
(3) I heard a version of Mussorgsky's "Night on a Bald Mountain" that
sounded different. What goes?
The conductor doubled the triangles
(3A) Is it "Bare Mountain"? or is it "Bald Mountain"?
Neither. It's Bare-assed Mountain -- Mussorgsky was a very crude fellow who was bowdlerized in the last century
(4) How come no one recognizes Glenn Gould as the great pianist that he
was?
Matthew Tepper has a lot of influence.
(4A) Are those grunts I hear on my Glenn Gould recording?
Yes. Monica Lewinsky is crouching under the piano.
(5) Was Vladimir Horowitz a fake?
A fake what?
(5A) Is David Helfgott a great pianist?
How many recordings of your playing have you sold?
(6) Why are we letting the pushers of period instruments take over?
We like alliteration.
(7) Which Bach piece is "Whiter Shade of Pale" taken from?
Concerto for Horn & Hardart
(7A) Which Chopin piece is "Color My World" taken from?
Nocturne in gray and black (portrait of the artist's mother) -- Oops! wrong nocturne.
(7B) What pieces has Keith Emerson used?
None. He has only abused them.
(7C) What about that diamond commercial?
Save your salary for six months.
(8) What are the 10 best pieces of classical music?
The Haffner Serenade.
(9) Wasn't Schoenberg conceited to think he could ruin music like that
and we'd let him?
Yes.
(9A) On whom should we blame serialism? (a) decadent capitalism (b)
totalitarian marxism.
Neither. Blame it on Kaffee mit Schlag.
(10) I am interested in learning to play a musical instrument. Which
one should I learn?
Kazoo
(11) Why should music majors have to learn Music Theory?
Good question. Why?
(11A) Is knowledge of Music Theory required to truly appreciate music?
Yes. It's not required to truly like it.
(11B) Well, if not for older music, how about 20th century music?
Yeah, how about it?
(11C) Does learning music theory impede your ability to "feel" the music?
Only if you sight read in Braille.
(12) Wasn't Schenker crazy to think that all music is basically
variations on the same little piece?
Did he? At last I find a kindred spirit!
(12A) You mean... ?
(12B) Who the hell is Schenker?
(13) How can people listen to (some type of music)? It all sounds
alike.
People hate surprises.
(14) Who is better: Bach or Beethoven?
Better at what? Clearly, Bach had more children.
(14A) What is the proper way to answer silly, undecidable questions
in newsgroups.
Pierrot Lunaire
(15) What's the deal with temperament?
Mine is pretty lousy. How about yours?
(15A) Why do string players play such high 3rd and 7th degrees of the
scale?
To call their dogs for dinner.
(15B) What is this about tuning a piano with "stretched" octaves?
When you let them go, they shrink back to fit the right interval.
(16) Can pianists change the tone of a single, unpedaled note without
changing its loudness?
Piano playing isn't about the notes; it's about what's in between the notes.
(16A) Will digital pianos ever sound exactly like the real ones?
To whom?
(17) How come different keys have different feelings?
If they all felt alike, anyone could steal your car at anytime.
(18) Is it PC to adhere to Wagner's political views?
There were no personal computers in Wagner's day.
(18A) Is it PC to listen to Wagner's music?
See above.
(18B) Is it PC to listen to the music of composers who influenced
Wagner?
Only if they didn't write hate treatises.
(18C) Is it PC to tell Viola Jokes?
Always. What's the difference between a violin and a viola? The viola burns longer.
(19) What are the limits of the period "Early Music"?
'til noon.
(20) Is 4'33" music?
Is a light-year time?
(20A) Is "Rap" music?Is the Pope Lutheran?
(20B) Is Salieri music?No. Salieri is the name of a composer.
(20C) Is Meyerbeer music?See 20B
(20D) What is the best recording of 4'33"?
New York Philharmonic with Robert Shaw Chorale, Bernstein conducting.
(21) Is it OK to play old music on modern instruments?
As long as a they're not fed through a wah-wah pedal.
(21A) Is it OK to play music written for one instrument on another
instrument?
Not if you're a purist.
(21B) Is it OK to play modern music on old instruments?
Just try it.
(22) Did Salieri murder Mozart?
We all murdered Mozart.
(22A) What good is the movie Amadeus if it is so inaccurate?
It has an attractive cast.
(22B) What about that "Beethoven" movie?
It unfortunately does not enjoy a similar distinction.
(23) Why is some music unjustly neglected?
Because not all of us enjoy minimalist sonatas for solo bassoon.
(24) I've figured out the secret to all music. Why can't you see that?
We do. Now take your medicine and go back to your cell.
(25) Don't we need to split rec.music.classical?
Into what?
(26) Will the next edition of "The New Grove" come out on CD-ROM?
We should be so lucky
(27) Was Tchaikovsky gay?Is the Pope Catholic?
(27A) Was Schubert gay?Are you a necrophiliac?
(27B) Has there ever been a gay composer?
Bach was reputedly happy and good-natured most of the time
(27C) Has there ever been a heterosexual composer?
Probably
(27D) Can you tell from the music?
Yes. Heterosexual music is marked by the repeated use of the "boobs-a-lot" dotted whole note rhythm, which is generally lacking in homosexual music. Also, homosexual music generally features gay cowboys eating pudding.
(27E) Should we care if a composer is gay?
Absolutely. You may want to date him/her some day.
(28) Why does the chromatic scale have 12 tones?
To match the colors of the rainbow.
(29) What is the fastest instrument?
The tromba marina. It's invisible.
(29A) If a viola and a grand piano are dropped off a building at the
same time, which would hit the ground first?
Ha! Trick question! What is the air resistance?
(30) Why give to the arts when there is unemployment?
Because many of us are employed in the arts.
--
Best regards,
Con
--
To reply, please remove anti-spam asterisk from return address
**************************************************************
"Mozart is too easy for beginners and too difficult for artists"
-- Artur Schnabel
**************************************************************