Motivic Basis of Jazz Improvisation
Max Leggett
The Motivic Basis of Jazz Improvisation. Steve sent me a very nice
email disagreeing with what I said, and I must say I was overly
dismissive. I agree with 99% of what Steve said in his email to me. I
asked if he'd mind if I posted his comments to the NG, as I think they
are are very sound, and he agreed. Here's Steve's reply to my post:
Dear Mr. Leggett: I recently came across a response of yours to my
book "TheMotivic Basis for Jazz Guitar Improvisation". While I have no
problem with your assessment of the book as " a so-so learning tool",
your impression of what I was thinking was, especially in regard to
the Miles Davis conjecture?? was at best, a short-armed, if not
entirely amputated, reach.Please allow me a few moments of your
valuable time to clarify the overarching point about the book and
about improvisation, in general.
No where in the history of jazz improvisation, either officially or
anecdotally, is it found that the master improvisers ever relied on
the intellectual construct of scales as the motivating force behind
the construction of an improvised solo. Scale studies, if you use the
classical conservatory as the historical model, have always served one
purpose and one purpose only: To learn how to play the instrument.
Look at some of the better known classical technique books such as
Arbans for trumpet, and Klose for woodwinds. Those books have nothing
to do with making music. In that world, the composition is always
greater than the artist performing it.
(The irony here shouldn't be lost on anyone who has a basic grasp on
the development of western music. The great composers were all great
improvisers in their own right. They even allowed this in the form of
written cadenzas. It's solely a world where the musician must
constantly strive over a lifetime to meet up to the greatness of the
written note.)
In jazz, the opposite is true. In it's traditions, it has been
established as an oral and aural art form whereby the improvised solo,
as a comment on the song upon which it is based, strives to excel
beyond the limitations of the melody (especially in the beginning of
its history), and harmony (as evidenced by the advent of bop and
beyond). If that were not the truth, then we would only hear unending
exact repetitions of the written melody on any given tune.
With this capsulated history of western music behind us as a
backdrop, the one common thread among all jazz players across the ages
has been: REPERTOIRE. The tunes have always taught the player how to
play on them. The tunes have always been the central source for the
motivic material. What Charlie Parker did (among others, both before
and after him) was to absorb and internalize so much melodic material
that he soon began to master the art of abstraction, whereby, he could
draw on in an instant, any melodic phrase or idea and develop it apart
from its original context into complete, logical phrases that could
stand entirely on their own with melodic and harmonic integrity. He
was so skilled at this, that he could interpolate, in an instant,
quotes from well-known and obscure sources from the classical
and popular repertoire. Check out his solo on "Anthropology". He
quotes from Bizet's "Carmen" as well as the pop tunes "High Society"
and "Temptation", all within a couple of fast choruses.
He was so much in control of his melodic sensibilities, especially in
the area of rhythm, that he created an entirely new model for
improvising on standard chord changes.(Which by the way, Dizzy
Gillespie and others in New York at the time were also developing
apart from Parker's arrival. In fact Gillespie said that Parker's
primary contribution was in his rhythmic concepts. That was the
missing piece of the puzzle for Gillespie and his cohorts.)
When "jazz education" left the bandstand and entered the classroom
with the advent of Westlake in Los Angeles, Berklee in Boston, and The
National Stage Band camps, starting in the mid-1940's and 50's, the
focus was still on improvisation as a repertoire/vocabulary approach.
The chord scale approach/justification didn't come into formal view
until maybe around the early -to-mid 1970's. This can be attributed to
many influences and other factors that we don't need to get into.
(Though I will say that David Baker, Jerry Coker and Jamey Aebersold
have contributed significantly to the formalized presentation of the
chord scale influence. Joe Pass' book from that time also helped to
open this slippery slope.)
My book is simply an attempt to cast the light back on Parker as the
primary source for vocabulary that is one or two steps removed from
the source of the repertoire. I had to assume the connection between
repertoire and jazz vocabulary would not an issue with anyone who
would find this book useful. This is NOT a book for the beginner,
novice, or dilettante. In other words, any guitarist who can not,
under public scrutiny, play a solo gig based on standard popular tunes
for a minimum of 90 minutes, and who is not aware of the precedent set
by Charlie Christian, and by extension, Tal, Jimmy, Herb Ellis, Barney
Kessel etcSSS will not find much use for this book. In no way and at
no time do I say in the book that this is a short-cut. If it's a
short-cut to anything, it's a short-cut to forcing the issue that we
only make time for what we want to do and not for what we have to do.
Maybe you'll check out my recordings some time to see if I really do
practice what I preach.
All the best,
Steve Rochinski
-------------------
In my reply to Steve I said that I agreed that the best way to learn
to play is to assimilate what the greats have already done. I think
Steve's right on the money. As he notes, his book is not for beginners
or novices.
LAZZERINI
And thanks to Steve Rochinski for writing it
LAZZ
Bob Russell
mleg...@sprint.ca wrote on 4/27/02 6:54 PM:
(quoting Steve Rochinski)
> No where in the history of jazz improvisation, either officially or
> anecdotally, is it found that the master improvisers ever relied on
> the intellectual construct of scales as the motivating force behind
> the construction of an improvised solo.
I would like to see this sentence set in at least 32 point type at the head
of every page in every "jazz pedagogy" syllabus in the world.
-- Bob Russell
http://www.bobrussellguitar.com
Nazodesu
<bobrus...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Maybe that's overkill, but I agree that needs to be expressed early and
emphasized. Otherwise learning players may not get the important
distinction between structural concepts and music.
I would hate to see this disintegrate into another one of the three
great arguments on this list, but in fairness, no where in the history
of jazz improv is it found conclusively what was going through the
minds of master improvisors. Certainly the intellectual construction
of scales is one of the things we don't know about, among all other
approaches.
While I agree with the basic point that, in the past, our greats
started, more or less, by learning the tunes and the licks they could
play over them, my belief is that they then frequently constructed, or
were aided in the structuring of overarching principles that guided the
compositions (II-V-I) the the invention of such licks (various scales,
arpeggios and chords).
One would think, then, that to get to the same point as these artists
it would serve one well to learn "intellectual" construction of
scales/arps/chords rather than an endless process of personal invention
and or copping-from-records or learning-on-the-gig from other players.
Especially as the number of gigs has diminished somewhat from the times
of such players as Christian and Kessel, et al.
Just because someone invented something, doesn't mean they we need to
invent it too, like it never existed before. In this way we get to
"stand on their shoulders" in our own inventions. In theory.
Once a certain facility with scales/arps/chords has been gained it
serves no one to use this material itself as raw
compositional/improvisational material. This is not the syntax and
vocabulary, this is only the alphabet.
Thom_j.
"Bob Russell" <bobrus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:B8F0BDF6.287D%bobrus...@hotmail.com...
Joe Finn
> With this capsulated history of western music behind us as a
> backdrop, the one common thread among all jazz players across the ages
> has been: REPERTOIRE.
*and*
>This is NOT a book for the beginner,
> novice, or dilettante. In other words, any guitarist who can not,
> under public scrutiny, play a solo gig based on standard popular tunes
> for a minimum of 90 minutes, and who is not aware of the precedent set
> by Charlie Christian, and by extension, Tal, Jimmy, Herb Ellis, Barney
> Kessel etcSSS will not find much use for this book.
Thanks for posting this, Max. I think these comments are right on the money.
They stress the history and the repertoire. Rochinski's comments about the
vocabulary are also well taken.
Stuff like this will always take precedence over the technicalities of chord
scale relationships. These relationships are important but it's best to keep
them in the perspective of the repertoire and it's long tradition. Outside
of this context they quickly become academic. ....joe
--
Visit me on the web. www.JoeFinn.net
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Charlie Robinson
scale relationships. These relationships are important but it's best to keep
them in the perspective of the repertoire and it's long tradition. Outside
of this context they quickly become academic. ....joe >>
Barney Kessell stated that playing scales in relation to the chords was like
being a rancher who drives around the ranch to survey his spread. For myself
this practice a great tool for learning the neck. It is a matter of habit for
me to play a chord, then it's corresponding scale and arpeggio. It's no big
deal, it is all there under your fingers. But the actual material for my solos
comes from listening and intuition. In the same article Barney also stated that
if you keep messing around with an F scale long enough in thirty years or so
you might play something as profound as the melody to "Bye Bye Blackbird". This
last statement has always helped me to keep things in perspective.
Charlie Robinson Jazz Guitarist, Composer
You can hear me online at: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/robinsonchazz
or: <A HREF="http://rmmgj.iuma.com">http://rmmgj.iuma.com</A>
Bob Russell
robins...@aol.com wrote on 4/29/02 12:32 AM:
> Barney Kessell stated that playing scales in relation to the chords was like
> being a rancher who drives around the ranch to survey his spread.
That's a great way of putting it!
John Dahlstedt
Tom Walls
bobrus...@hotmail.com says...
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
Jurupari
Thanks for the reminder - I remember reading that years ago and thinking he'd
really nailed it with that statement. I guess you could say I got me some
collection of meadow muffins by now.
I try to get my students involved in the concept of motif from the beginning.
Since they do need to get around the ranch too, I try to interface all that as
we go. That letter on motivic significance is probably going to get quoted to
students a bit since it articulated my own feelings a lot better than I've ever
been able to. I hope it gets widely read, and repeatedly.
Clif Kuplen
Joe Finn
> Barney Kessell stated that playing scales in relation to the chords was
like
> being a rancher who drives around the ranch to survey his spread. For
myself
> this practice a great tool for learning the neck. It is a matter of habit
for
> me to play a chord, then it's corresponding scale and arpeggio. It's no
big
> deal, it is all there under your fingers. But the actual material for my
solos
> comes from listening and intuition. In the same article Barney also stated
that
> if you keep messing around with an F scale long enough in thirty years or
so
> you might play something as profound as the melody to "Bye Bye Blackbird".
This
> last statement has always helped me to keep things in perspective.
>
Well put, Charlie.
I recall another quote from Barney regarding scales. I included it somewhere
in the Jazz Guitar Almanac. He said something about scales being preparatory
to the activity of music itself in the same way that dancers work with the
bar in the studio. In other words warming up at the bar is not dance in the
same sense that practicing scales is not music.
Anyhow, he said it a lot better than I just did but you probably get the
general idea. ....joe
thomas
> in article 20020429003201...@mb-fq.aol.com, Charlie Robinson at
> robins...@aol.com wrote on 4/29/02 12:32 AM:
>
> > Barney Kessell stated that playing scales in relation to the chords was like
> > being a rancher who drives around the ranch to survey his spread.
But if you want to get one of your cows pregnant, you're going
to have to get out of that truck.
Joey Goldstein
Well I wasn't going to get into this but here I am raining on the parade.
I think that the way that most people here will interpret that sentence
is a really BAD thing although the actual sentiments discussed in the
rest of Mr. Rochinski's post I agree with 100%.
To me the key words in the above sentence are "motivating force".
Scales and the study of scales and chord-scale relationships were never
intended to be the "motivating force" behind an improvised solo and
anybody taeching that this is so should not be allowed to teach. The
sentence above seems to be implying that the study of scales, and more
specifically chord-scale realationships, by a student of jazz is a
fruitless approach and this is just wrong. I know this from personal
experience.
There is no SINGLE thing a student can study that will give him a
complete understanding of how jazz from any particular era of jazz was
conceived. Beboppers and before were most certainly not "thinking" about
modal chord-scale relationships but they did know their scales. Monk
knew when he was playing whole tone scale and he knew what it's effects
were going to be with the chord of the moment. Bird and Dizzy knew the
harmonic minor scale inside out and they were well aware of it's effects
when they played it from the 5th degree on V7b9 chords. Armstrong knew
his major and minor scales cold.
All the jazz educators did starting around 1960 was to give some of
these relationships names.
The chord-scale approach does throw *some* light on every era of jazz
improvisation from New Orlean's style jazz through the to most modern
approaches today, whether or not those early players were thinking that
way or not. Other organizational approaches to the relationship between
melody and harmony in the jazz idiom can not make that claim. For
example the Barry Harris approach to harmony and melody via the use of
octotonic bebop scales will tell you nothing about the way Allan
Holdworth organizes his materials. Yet aspects of Holdsworth and bebop
both can be seen *somewhat* through the lens of the chord-scale approach.
The "motivating force" for an improvised line is *feeling* and the feel
can be created by a great many devices including motific development and
chord-scale relationships both.
And there are and have been great jazz players that have relied heavily
on chord-scale concepts. No amount of Stanley Crouch style revisionism
can change this.
The sentence in question seems to be telling aspiring musicians that
they don't need to study chord-scales or at worst that the should
actively avoid doing so and this is a dangerous proposition in my
opinion. A serious student should study everything they can get their
hands on. But don't be naive. You can't study one thing and one thing
only and become a good jazz player.
--
Joey Goldstein
Guitarist/Jazz Recording Artist/Teacher
Home Page: http://www.joeygoldstein.com
Email: <joegold AT sympatico DOT ca>
Thom_j.
Bob Russell
> Bob Russell wrote:
> >
> > in article 3ccb2a89....@news.sprint.ca, Max Leggett at
> > mleg...@sprint.ca wrote on 4/27/02 6:54 PM:
> >
> > (quoting Steve Rochinski)
> > > No where in the history of jazz improvisation, either officially or
> > > anecdotally, is it found that the master improvisers ever relied on
> > > the intellectual construct of scales as the motivating force behind
> > > the construction of an improvised solo.
> >
> > I would like to see this sentence set in at least 32 point type at the head
> > of every page in every "jazz pedagogy" syllabus in the world.
>
> Well I wasn't going to get into this but here I am raining on the parade.
>
> I think that the way that most people here will interpret that sentence
> is a really BAD thing although the actual sentiments discussed in the
> rest of Mr. Rochinski's post I agree with 100%.
>
> To me the key words in the above sentence are "motivating force".
Exactly. That's why I responded as I did. I'm not saying it's not important to
know scales or chord/scale relationships. I'm just saying that those things, in
and of themselves, are not jazz. If you want to worry about misinterpretation,
worry about about the ways in which so many people have misinterpreted the works
of Aebersold, Baker et al.
I get a lot of email from people wanting to know whether they should learn
"scales or chord tones", as if it's an either/or proposition. Scales and chord
tones are all important, of course. But they do not equal LINES.
-Bob R.
Mark Kleinhaut
Bob Russell <bobrus...@hotmail.com> wrote:
(snip)
Scales and chord
>tones are all important, of course. But they do not equal LINES.
>
>-Bob R.
>
problem I see is that people can fall just as easily into a "jazz vocabulary
= lines" kinda world view, and wind up quoting stock phrases and catchy little
bopitisms. This has little qualitative difference than just running scales
but seems to somehow pass better with traditionalists.
--------------------Mark Kleinhaut
markkl...@hotmail.com
Info and soundclips about:
"Chasing Tales":
http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/Chasing%20Tales.html
"Amphora":
http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/Amphora.html
"Secrets of Three": http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/SO3.html
Bob Russell
> Bob Russell <bobrus...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> (snip)
> Scales and chord
> >tones are all important, of course. But they do not equal LINES.
> >
> >-Bob R.
> >
> This is sort of the crux of the matter, then, what does equal "LINES". The
> problem I see is that people can fall just as easily into a "jazz vocabulary
> = lines" kinda world view, and wind up quoting stock phrases and catchy little
> bopitisms. This has little qualitative difference than just running scales
> but seems to somehow pass better with traditionalists.
I'm hardly a traditionalist. A solo full of somebody else's stock phrases doesn't
qualify for much in my book; that'd be almost as bad as just running up and down
a scale or arpeggio. This is the stuff that's really hard to put into words;
that's why people tend to write books that lead other people to believe "it's
about chord/scale" or "it's about chord tones" or even "it's about motives". It's
about all that and more. Thinking that any of those things is the magic key to
improvising would be a mistake. All that stuff is just raw material.
The part that's hard to write about is that all those things are acted upon and
transformed by the player's very being. A hundred jazz players can know pretty
much the same theoretical information; none of them will sound exactly alike.
Many of them will have similar melodic ideas; a few will have strikingly
different ideas. Of those few, a couple will be strikingly good; others will be
strikingly bad. Most will be one side or the other of "okay". How do we predict
who ends up where? We can't, really. But you'll know it when you hear it.
--Bob R.
Dan Adler
> Bob Russell <bobrus...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> (snip)
> Scales and chord
> >tones are all important, of course. But they do not equal LINES.
> >
> >-Bob R.
> >
> This is sort of the crux of the matter, then, what does equal "LINES". The
> problem I see is that people can fall just as easily into a "jazz vocabulary
> = lines" kinda world view, and wind up quoting stock phrases and catchy little
> bopitisms. This has little qualitative difference than just running scales
> but seems to somehow pass better with traditionalists.
Lines are made up of melodic fragments. Many people create lines out
of fragments. The geniuses among us invent new fragments. Most of us
use other people's fragments. Learning lines is only useful if you use
the knowledge to construct new lines out of fragments. Learning
fragments is essential to sounding "hip" in a particular style, unless
you're a genius, in which case - make up your own.
Tom Walls
d...@danadler.com says...
As an undergrad at Indiana University, I took a "Rudiments of Music"
course. This course was a prerequisite to taking any courses in the
School of Music. It was largely an ear training class. The training was
based on a study of three interval sets: M2,M2,m2; M2,m2,M2; M2,M2,M2.
You learned to recognize the sets, then to combine the sets out of which
comes the basic scales: major, minor, dominant, diminished, etc. You get
the idea.
So anyway, this has stuck with me -- at any given point I imagine a path
from where I am based on the musical fragment of this pitch set.
thomas
>
> A solo full of somebody else's stock phrases doesn't
> qualify for much in my book; that'd be almost as bad as just running up and down
> a scale or arpeggio.
There have been some great players whose entire schtick was borrowed.
Sonny Stitt and Ben Webster are the primo examples.
Kevin & Karen Coffey
> From: Tom Walls <tw...@REMOVEcornell.edu>
> Organization: Cornell U.
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 08:33:36 -0400
> Subject: Re: Motivic Basis of Jazz Improvisation
>
>
Tom,
Please explain
M2,M2,m2; M2,m2,M2; M2,M2,M2
Kevin Coffey
LegalyzeIt
i'd also like to throw in a few things about this.
i'm a student at berklee and have taken several classes with steve rochinski.
though i have not bought this book or really looked at it at all, i will say
this much...it is almost definately worth some study, just because of steve's
hand in it.
steve is one of the two greatest teachers i've had at berklee (dave santoro
being the other) and it is always a pleasure discussing music with him.
see you in the fall in advanced harmonic concepts, steve.
james ludwig
Tom Walls
kco...@firstbridge.net says...
instance, M2,M2,m2 could be C,D,E,F -- you see, four notes with three
intervals. If you combine that with a M2,M2,M2 -- F,G,A,B -- you have
the notes of a major scale. If you combine it with M2,M2,m2, it's the
mixolydian scale, etc. But it's not really about scale building; it's
about recognizing the musical fragment and being able to use it to
fulfill your needs.
Joey Goldstein
Those little 4 note scales are usually called tetrachords. The usual
definition of a tetrachord is a 4 tone scale that spans a perfect 4th
and has no consecutive min 2nds. So there are 4 possible tetrachord types:
major = 1 2 3 4
minor = 1 2 b3 4
phrygian = 1 b2 b3 4
harmonic = 1 b2 3 4
All of the common septatonic (7 tone) scales and most of their modal
variants can be seen as being constructed with 2 tetrachords spaced a
whole step apart.
Example:
C harm min
C min tet + G harm tet
C D Eb F + G Ab B C
The tetrachord that spans an augmented 4th and consists of 3 whole tones
is known as the tritone. Yep. "Tritone" is an interval but it is also a
little scale (or should I say "pitch collection"?). I don'tv think the
tritone scale can rightfully be called a "tetrachord" though because
implicit in the definition of tetrachord is this idea of it spanning a P4th.
But it is possible to create a series of 4 note scales that span an aug
4th with no consecutive min 2nds.
1 2 b3 #4
1 b2 b3 #4
1 #2 3 #4
1 2 #3 #4
1 b2 #3 #4
1 #2 #3 #4
Any 7 note scale with an aug 4th scale degree, like the lydian scale,
can be seen as having one of these types of 4 tone scales (quartatonic?)
spanning a tritone on the lower end.
Lydian is a tritone scale plus a major tetrachord a 1/2 step above:
C lydian
C tri scale + G maj tetrachord
C D E F# + G A B C
This of course opens up all sorts of scale building where the two 4 note
scales are a 1/2 step apart rather than a whole step apart.
There is a chapter in my book that talks about this and I think I
suggest some ways that an improviser might use these ideas. Chap XIII
Chord Scales Via Modal Theory - Part 2, subsection B-3.
Tom Walls
>
> Those little 4 note scales are usually called tetrachords. The usual
> definition of a tetrachord is a 4 tone scale that spans a perfect 4th
> and has no consecutive min 2nds. So there are 4 possible tetrachord types:
> major = 1 2 3 4
> minor = 1 2 b3 4
> phrygian = 1 b2 b3 4
> harmonic = 1 b2 3 4
>
> All of the common septatonic (7 tone) scales and most of their modal
> variants can be seen as being constructed with 2 tetrachords spaced a
> whole step apart.
> Example:
> C harm min
> C min tet + G harm tet
> C D Eb F + G Ab B C
>
> The tetrachord that spans an augmented 4th and consists of 3 whole tones
> is known as the tritone. Yep. "Tritone" is an interval but it is also a
> little scale (or should I say "pitch collection"?). I don'tv think the
> tritone scale can rightfully be called a "tetrachord" though because
> implicit in the definition of tetrachord is this idea of it spanning a P4th.
>
snip
Now that you've jogged my memory, this is indeed how this information was
presented at I. They didn't use the term "tetrachord" though, and I
can't for the life of me remember how they referred to the four note
pitch set. As I mentioned earlier, this concept was used for ear
training. It was very effective. The exams were all transcription.
Kevin & Karen Coffey
For the neophyte, reading this group is better than taking a course! And
living in rural New Hampshire, that isn't really an option, anyway.
I have been copying & pasting all the stuff on Motivic Basis of Jazz
Improvisation to save since I have the book and this really is giving me a
context for it and the motivation to really put some effort into it.
I had a feeling after listening to Steve Rochinski's CD that The book would
be worth the effort.
Kevin Coffey
> From: Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net>
> Organization: Bell Sympatico
> Reply-To: joegoldATsympaticoDOTca
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 10:52:33 -0400
> Subject: Re: Motivic Basis of Jazz Improvisation
>
Kevin & Karen Coffey
Thanks for the explanation. As you can guess, I am not schooled in music!
But have been playing a long time as well as listening to jazz for 30 yrs,
so my ears are schooled.
Kevin Coffey
> From: Tom Walls <tw...@REMOVEcornell.edu>
> Organization: Cornell U.
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 11:20:07 -0400
> Subject: Re: Motivic Basis of Jazz Improvisation
>
Taura Eruera
I've been working with melodic motifs for some time now when I found
that running the changes seemed for me to be just that: running the
changes. On a good day you can run ahead of the changes. Other days,
you get run over by them. On either day, the change running can sound
like harmonic roadrunners. And it's on those days I find myself
asking: how can I play less notes and more music? I got the notes.
Where's the melody again?
So, what I did was to cut back to 3 note and 4 note motifs and start
again from
there. I simplified them even further by eliminating rhythm while I
learnt them. I found the rhythm certainly came when I outputted these
motifs.
Some of this work can be seen here:
http://www.innerscales.com/major/preview/treble/34notes/index.html
Did motivic playing stop me from running the changes? No. That habit
is well
ingrained. But I did note that I changeran much less and found more
melodic patience, confidence and shape entering my choruses. And with
that more shape to hang any change running on and around.
Have fun
Taura
Charlie Robinson
<< > Barney Kessell stated that playing scales in relation to the chords was
like
> > being a rancher who drives around the ranch to survey his spread.
But if you want to get one of your cows pregnant, you're going
to have to get out of that truck. Tom Brown
--------------------------------
Bull!