This got mentioned in the Howard Levy thread. I don't want to threadjack, so I thought I'd ask the question in a new topic.
Here's my (probably rambling, disconnected) thoughts on music from a listener's perspective...
Music is socially conditioned. We understand the 'rules' that we learn as we grow up. That is why the older generation never 'gets' the younger generations music. It is why the music of the Far East can sound alien to Westerners and possibly vice-versa.
So is hip-hop cerebral music because some of us need to learn to understand it before we can listen and enjoy it? [deliberately provocative style choice btw, but I could have just as easily said Gamelan, Bhangra or even Nintendocore, Lowercase or Epic-Doom Metal]
Is cerebral music about education and social class? I don't like the idea, but until very recently the institutions of Western classical music have been deliberately elitist. "Got to keep the riff-raff out old boy!". Is that where this idea of cerebral comes from? that only educated people can enjoy classical music (for instance)?
I listen to music for an emotional response. I like angry, loud music; it helps me blow off steam. I like calm soothing music, it helps me relax. I like rhythmic, repetitive music - it's good to dance to. You don't think about emotional responses, they just happen. Yes (at this moment in time) I like it, or no, I don't want to listen to this.
Virtuosity is a completely separate issue. I know that Howard Levy is an amazing musician. I've never met him, but from what I have seen and heard he strikes me as the antithesis of pretentious. I don't listen to his music to hear the overblows, or to acknowledge his mastery of harmony. I can enjoy it just fine for its holistic value.
On the other hand Satriani is clearly a master of the guitar. I don't like his music - it doesn't speak to me. Maybe I haven't heard enough, maybe I haven't made the connection with the right piece. Maybe it just isn't my cup of tea. Is that what people mean by cerebral music? stuff they don't like, but can't dismiss because the player is inarguably, technically accomplished?
Cerebral musicians - yes, I can deal with that and by the same token pretentious musicians and humble musicians and just about any adjective musicians: but music is just music.
I have an absurd (maybe) mental image of people listening to Charlie Parker, forcing themselves to 'connect' to it because they 'know' that it is 'clever' and liking it will make them look 'clever'. Is there any truth in that? really? be honest now! I had to consciously learn to like beer, never did like the taste. Love it now, but as a kid I had to literally force it down whilst secretly pining for a coke. Did anyone listen to Bird and secretly pine for Elvis?
Hmmm... I'm just throwing these out there, I'm not sure I'm getting anywhere!
I don't consider myself as "Educated" although I have come college under my belt but I love Wagner. I think he was the Heavy Metal Master of the 1850's. I don't like Hip Hop and most Rap(I do like House of Pain and Kid Rock though) because they don't deal with/talk about subjects that I personally can relate to. Just never felt like crusin' around in my Caddy with a 40 and a Glock looking for someone to pop a cap in.LOL. I think a lot of what we like musically can come from our first influences or from music that we've heard in good situations. My first Band was the Beatles, had their record "Something New" when I was 4 years old and knew ever song on that album by the time I was 5. Also had a lot of Grand Ol' Opery stuff on Decca records so that's probably why I love Bluegrass. The main things that I like to listen to are Classic Rock(in which I include Southern Rock), Metal, Blues, Bluegrass and Country. I also like Smooth Jazz but forget about playing guitar to it, way to complicated for me, I'm much more of a Blues influenced guitar player(i.e. B.B. King, Eric Clapton, SRV). I really don't know where we're going with this thread, if we're looking for more of a "Nature vs Nurture" deal with musical tastes or what but I think the more we listen to and become familiar with different kinds of music the more we tend to like that type of music. JMHO, YMMV. ---------- Hohner Big River in Low F,G,A,Bb and D Hohner Special 20 in Bb Suzuki HarpMaster in C Suzuki FolkMaster in D,E and F
I kind of got the impression from some of the comments I've seen in that Levy thread and in others (especially that huge argument about the artistic merits of hip-hop) that some people believe there to be a heirarchy of musical styles. That somehow certain genres have more respectability and value than others. I'm not sure I can agree with that.
Someone took great offense when I suggested that there was no such thing as a 'serious' musician. My point being that all musicians would consider themselves to be creating valid music and therefore are all serious musicians. Peter Andre would say he was a serious musician in the pop medium. Is he wrong? I would say that few artists have the luxury of defining themselves in those terms and it is up to the audience to decide.
When a piece of simple music can connect with me on an emotional level that another more complex piece can't, and vice versa - how can we imply that one is better than the other?
{edit} and remember I'm coming at this from a listener's perspective.
Last Edited by on Oct 05, 2010 8:02 AM
I've always wondered just what a "serious" Musician was. Music is an Art and in order to express Art there has to be a bit of Freedom to try new things and follow your heart. I think as a musician you can be serious about making money or about finding the right sound but you need to stay "light" enough(i.e. Not so serious) so you can "go with the flow" when you're creative juices start to flow. I guess some Classical folks are "serious" and only play what's on the paper in front of them but that's not me, I like to have fun and express myself with my music. I'm in no way "God's Gift" to music but I can play guitar and bass well enough to express myself and that's really all I'm looking for, a way to let out my feelings and ideas. I think music should be about expressing yourself and having fun first and fore most no matter what style it is. ---------- Hohner Big River in Low F,G,A,Bb and D Hohner Special 20 in Bb Suzuki HarpMaster in C Suzuki FolkMaster in D,E and F
My Grandmother used to say, 'If you want to listen to music, listen to Bach. If you want to enjoy it, listen to Mozart.'
Bach did all sorts of fancy fugues where he would play the same 'melody' backwards or inverted over the original. Unless you new something about music it just sounded like music. If you listened for that, it added another layer. I suppose there are probably layers like that in lots of types of music, if you know the cues to listen for.
TNFrank, Wagner is O.K., but despite what my Grandmother said, I think Bach is the real heavy metal classicist!
I was riding on a choir bus once. There was a guy who was trying to get us to listen to his avant-garde music of the week. It was an incredibly slow melody, were only one note at a time would change, almost imperceptibly. He kept telling us how brilliant the composer was. After about ten minutes the choir director told him to 'turn that sh** off'.
I'm not trying to dodge the issue, but at the end of the day beauty is in the eye, or ear, of the beholder. People listen with differing agendas...I very much used to myself, but I try hard to be objective, asking myself whether the artist is achieving what they set out to do, rather than are they doing what I would want to do in their position (a view that I, frustratingly, hear a lot).
I think that those with a developed sense of music theory will get a kick out of a clever progression, or arpeggio...just like anyone might dig a clever or witty lyric.
Me, I just love the sound of stuff if, a guy might just hit one note or chord and I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for the next one, if they can do that with complexity then I have no complaints & will still enjoy it...even if I don't necessarily "get it". I recently just put on a Bluenote sampler that I've had for years, never really paid much attention to it, but been struck by the quality of the recordings, tonality of the instruments & listen to it a lot now...whether I hear what was intended is irrelevant, I enjoy what I take from it.
If it has to be explained to me why something is good, then I tend to feel that it has missed the mark . It's like being influenced by the provenance of ingredients in food & drink, doesn't matter what kind of oak it was matured in, where the grapes, or hops came from, how innovative the process - if it tastes like crap at the end of the day, it tastes like crap. Like if a harp player has to explain a technique to me to demonstrate why what he is doing is "clever", if it sounded good on the first go round, he wouldn't have to! I admit I've done it myself, in the past...I'm not sure what's behind it, arrogance, insecurity - anything but the unfaceable truth that what you did simply didn't sound good?
I don't see a dividing line between music that gets you in the gut and that which tickles your synapses...great music can undoubtedly do, one or the other, or both. You can take from it what you like, irrespective of what the performer, or more often the critc's perception/intention.
People's palates typically "dry" over the years, sweet gives way to sour & bitterness. Kids tend to like easily diced, non offensive food, no bones, no gristle, no strong odours - stuff just to sustain them whilst they do more exciting kid's stuff (scrumping for cars, egging senior citizens, happy slapping, etc). Some show a more adventurous palate, some carry on childhood habits through adulthood. No, I didn't like beer when I tried it as a kid, but I have tried (& still do) some pretty odd drinks, that the majority of folks will never appreciate...as a kid I wouldn't have thought it legal to sell them for consumption! When I was a kid, we used to spend summers in the country, we were always herded into the milking shed & forced to try "real" milk...yeuch! Smells of cows udders! ...now when I buy cheese I might go for non-pasturised, artisanal cheese...hmmmm, smells like cow's udders :-)
Just like music...some folks just want to hit a button & have something to sing along with, others want to be challenged & amused, others will seek "meaning" even where none was intended, (Beatles lyrics are a rich picking ground for misconstrued meanings/interpretations).
@ nacoran, if you have a fast enough right hand for all those 1/16th notes Bach is awesome to play on the electric guitar. ;)
Most non-musical people tend to like simple music, that's why Green Day is so popular, they're masters of the "Three Chord Rock" style of music. Personally, I'd rather listen to Rush or Dream Theater because as a musician I can really get into all the complexity of their stuff. I like John Petrucci and B.B.King but for different reasons. Petrucci plays like a house a fire, fast right hand, sweeping guitar licks, totally awesome. B.B.King plays slower but he has a ton of heart into those few notes that he plays, you can almost feel the emotion ooze out of each and every note. I don't think a person has to be limited to just one style of music that they like, you can like all the different styles of music that you want, there's no limit on it. Just find what you like and enjoy listening to it. ---------- Hohner Big River in Low F,G,A,Bb and D Hohner Special 20 in Bb Suzuki HarpMaster in C Suzuki FolkMaster in D,E and F
Last Edited by on Oct 05, 2010 8:24 AM
Many popular forms of music cross educational/social and cultural realms. "hip hop" & rap is as mainstream as music gets these days, has been for the last 25+ years. Access to musical genres is pretty well unlimited these days, one of the things I find encouraging is that anyone anywhere can pretty well tap into whatever music they like.
As with any art form, even if intention is misconstrued, it may not detract from appreciation one jot.
"Cerebral music tends to be music that engages the mind and not the body. More specifically, cerebral music is "difficult," or complicated, or aetherial."
So something like this:(better example, long though)
At least for me this is "Cerbral Music". ---------- Hohner Big River in Low F,G,A,Bb and D Hohner Special 20 in Bb Suzuki HarpMaster in C Suzuki FolkMaster in D,E and F
Last Edited by on Oct 05, 2010 9:55 AM
All I know was that when I was 14 I found my first charlie parker ablum. Charlie Parker with strings. It was the most beautiful album I ever heard and to it sounded like flying. Complete and ultimate freedom to say and go wherever he wanted. That's what music represents to me. When I hear people playing the same blues over and over that doesn't sound like freedom exactly, it sounds like a schtick. Maybe that works for some people but what ultimately spoke to me about charlie parker was the beautiful of his music and that what he "said" with his horn was exactly what he wanted to say everytime in the most concise and profound way. Whether that's simple or complex it didn't matter, he said both! That's ultimately what I strive to achieve.
edit: here's the first song I remember listening to over and over. Now THAT speaks to moi.
---------- Andrew Larson, R.N.
Last Edited by on Oct 05, 2010 10:19 AM
It seems like most people who claim it to be 'cerebral' are people who don't like it and/or can't do it. I don't understand that, it's like the ultimate diss to those greats who spent years learning. I hear more emotion in more jazz than I do in blues and part of it to me seems like it is because there is more possibilities because they have nearly no limit.
With respect Adam I think you missed my point. I know very well what cerebral means and its derivation. My point was is it fair to create a heirarchy of musical forms? I have a really hard time accepting this idea that you have to understand a piece of music to listen to it, enjoy it and thereby assign value to it. Take Miles Davis or Wagner (for instance) I can listen to and enjoy both without having to have any knowledge of harmony - it's an emotional thing. I'm not thinking "Wow! that's clever and technical and complex." I'm just thinking "I like that sound" in the same way that I can listen to Madonna or NWA and think "I like that sound".
Appreciating someone's technical skill is not the same as enjoying their music at a purely emotional level.
Mr.V, it seems like a lot of people see Jazz as a very 'sophisticated' style. Well, do you know who the majority of the guys playing it were? White AND black guys who had no cash, who were in impoverished areas, in dangerous territories. I don't get how it became something else (Kenny G, maybe?).
I haven't read the Levy thread. But deducing from this thread cerebral music comes more from the listener than the artist. If you have to use your brain to say there's something to it, then it's cerebral. If you feel it, it's good music. And if you can't find anything in it, it's bad music.
All in the ear of the listener. ---------- The MBH thread-thread thread!
Last Edited by on Oct 05, 2010 2:15 PM
@verylong: I was making my own point, in response to the title you attached to this thread, not responding to your post. But in answer to the question you reiterate in your most recent post: no. Westerners did that because they were racist and didn't have the rhythmic intelligence to understand African music. (That was sort of my point; in that sense, I was indeed getting, and responding to, your point, but you didn't realize this.) So just as racial theorists ranked the races, with whites at the tops and blacks and other colored (savage, primitive, emotional) people down below, so the cultural theorists ranked Western concert music at the top and "folk" musics down below. It turns out that Western concert music is melodically and harmonically complex but rhythmically fairly simple. African music is melodically and harmonically simply but rhythmically complex, and the polyrhythms turn out to be where the melodies and harmonies are hiding.
Jazz isn't one thing, BTW. So blues lovers who say they "don't like jazz" aren't speaking intelligibly. They're drawing lines in the sand, but that's not the same thing as accurately describing what one likes and dislikes. Do you like Bessie Smith, Sippie Wallace, any of the classic blueswomen? They were all backed up by jazz bands, not blues bands. If you like them, you like jazz. Do you like Roomful of Blues? They're essentially a pared-down version of big-band jazz in its bluesier mode: the sort of band that backed up Joe Williams. Do you like Ray Charles? Do you like B. B. King? If you've ever been to their live shows, you know that the first two or three songs of the night are bluesy jazz. Do you like Cream? Ginger Baker was a jazz drummer. Do you like Big Walter Horton's version of "Don't Get Around Much Anymore"? I thought so. Please don't say that you love blues but don't like jazz. That makes no sense. Be more specific about what you like and don't like.
Last Edited by on Oct 05, 2010 2:52 PM
Anyone else totally love the Blue Man Group? I think they're pretty cerebral. Adam talking about the African Drumming got me to thinking about em'.
---------- Hohner Big River in Low F,G,A,Bb and D Hohner Special 20 in Bb Suzuki HarpMaster in C Suzuki FolkMaster in D,E and F
Last Edited by on Oct 05, 2010 3:18 PM
I think that much of what you are positing is probably bang on. In my studies, I've had to listen to a great deal of music that was supposed to be elevated or 'cerebral' simply on account of the cleverness that went into its composition.
Nevertheless, much of this music - Schoenberg, Webern, John Cage et al - bored me to tears, and that was after studying twelve note composition. Perhaps my boredom was because of a complete lack adherence to the rules; or, as you put it, "...the 'rules' that we learn as we grow up."
Having said that, it's impossible for me to prove that that is the case because it's not possible to prove a negative: I didn't grow up with avant-garde music being the norm.
I suppose I'm talking about why any given piece of music is or isn't cerebral to me, rather than what makes music cerebral.
Well, I would argue that any piece that engages your mind and pricks up the ears is cerebral, at least in the axiomatic sense that you appear to be using the word.
As much as I loath hip-hop, I can understand that its sound world is wrapped up in the youth movement it sprang from/caters for; its lyrics and dress code aren't likely to mean as much to a 48 year old man as they are to a 17 year old boy.
Does that make it any more or less cerebral? Clearly, it depends on the audience.
Still, I suppose that's over-simplyfying or side-stepping the other thing that has been brought up, namely: the cleverness of any composition.
In the last paragraph of Adam's first above, he talks about the complexities of African music, and he is absolutely right; it treats rhythm in a non-pedestrian way that can be very hard for non-African listeners to understand. Note that I didn't say enjoy, I just said understand.
By that, I mean the complex and fascinating ways that the rhythms shift and interplay with one another, much as Adam was describing. Utterly absorbing examples of this can be found in the works of Steve Reich, who made a study of African music and includes its techniques in his compositions. For an example of this, listen to Sextet, especially the 5th movement.
As much as I love that piece - which shifts its rhythms in a way that I find impossible to follow - I still enjoy music that is mind-numbingly straightforward and predictable.
Michael Nyman's twelve minute long, repetitive theme to the film The cook, the thief, his wife and her lover is, rhythmically speaking, the complete opposite of the Reich piece I mentioned above; it's almost banal in its simplicity. Yet, it still manages to engage my cerebrum just as much as the Reich piece. ---------- YouTube SlimHarpMick
Sorry, I thought my point was clear, obvious even: youth music is more likely to appeal to the young, despite the DJ you mentioned. I would have thought that most people would accept that as an axiom.
And another thing: there are many examples of older DJs playing music aimed at younger people, e.g. the late John Peel, but their target audience is still primarily that of a younger generation. Peel was still broadcasting on BBC Radio 1 in his 60s, or late 50s at the least.
Anyway, that's all I'm going to say on that. The thread title is about 'cerebral music', not 'youth music'. ---------- YouTube SlimHarpMick
Last Edited by on Oct 06, 2010 6:24 AM
Music isn't static, it evolves. You can trace most of the Blues and Rock back to Robert Johnson and the stuff that he did. You can trace Bluegrass and Country back to what the Carter Family did. I'm sure if you looked you could trace Hip Hop back to Disco and Funk from '70's. One style evolves into another style and that in turn evolves into something else. Musical forms fuse together to form new forms. Rock and Rap turned into stuff that Anthrax was doing in the late '80's, early '90's which in turn became stuff that Limp Bizkit did in the late '90's. Music is alive, it changes, it evolves and grows. ---------- Hohner Big River in Low F,G,A,Bb and D Hohner Special 20 in Bb Suzuki HarpMaster in C Suzuki FolkMaster in D,E and F
"Youth Music" isn't a fixed perameter, Westwood likes rap/hip hop because it's the music he was attracted to in his youth. That's the point, many folks tend to stick with what they were raised on..Youth music is just music that youths like, could be rap/hip hop, could be the Stones, my 4yr old neice loves Abba...so is Abba primary school music, 70's music, music that middle aged people like...or all of the above?
Youths like old style music too...ask Amy Winehouse, Joss Stone, Plan B, Duffy, Gabriella Cilmi....even when I was a kid we listened to recycled hits from the past, we didn't think of it as old people's music.
TN Frank wrote: "I'm sure if you looked you could trace Hip Hop back to Disco and Funk from '70's." Although not mainstream before the 70's, rap predates Disco & Funk. Rap goes back to gospel as far as I can tell.
Much as it changes, much of it still stays the same...it goes in cycles.
@5F6H, I did not know that. Thanks for the info. ;) ---------- Hohner Big River in Low F,G,A,Bb and D Hohner Special 20 in Bb Suzuki HarpMaster in C Suzuki FolkMaster in D,E and F
"So is hip-hop cerebral music because some of us need to learn to understand it before we can listen and enjoy it?"
From the pensive and insightful "Gangsta, gangsta" by NWA:
"Here's a little somethin' bout a nigga like me Never shoulda been let out the penititary Ice Cube would like ta say That I'm a crazy mutha fucka from around the way Since I was a youth, I smoked weed out Now I'm the mutha fucka that ya read about Takin' a life or two That's what the hell I do, you don't like how I'm livin Well fuck you! This is a gang, and I'm in it My man Dre'll fuck you up in a minute With a right left, right left you're toothless And then you say goddamn they ruthless! Everwhere we go they say [damn!] N W A's fuckin' up tha program And then you realize we don't care We don't just say no, we to busy sayin' yeah! To drinkin' straight out the eight bottle Do I look like a mutha fuckin role model? To a kid lookin' up ta me Life ain't nothin but bitches and money. Cause I'm tha type o' nigga that's built ta last If ya fuck wit me I'll put a foot in ya ass See I don't give a fuck 'cause I keep bailin Yo, what the fuck are they yellin"
......um no..not "cerebral"
I know, I know....I just don't "get it".
Guilty as charged your honor.
Last Edited by on Oct 06, 2010 7:25 AM
Yes, that's an important point and leading on from that is our human (and perhaps controversially I'll posit male) obsession with defining a label for every genre and sub-genre that evolves. As Adam points out Jazz is a very broad church - an almost meaningless term. You could say the same about blues and rock and country, reggae and hiphop - in fact every style. Even when you get down to the level of the individual artist there's no guarantee that a single label will define their music - especially over the whole of their career.
It reminds me of 'High Fidelity' where the hero discusses how to order his record collection - a familiar dilemma for me! There are always exceptions that defy being pigeonholed into one box.
Once you've put filled the boxes, there is a natural urge to stack them in some order - question is which way?
If I've understood correctly, Adam argues that our cultural upbringing (perhaps at a subconscious level) influences our perception of the artistic merit of music and that that cultural heritage is subject to factors far outside of music - race/class/cultural/generational politics. Whatever we may feel are personal taste based decisions are actually wrapped up in the baggage of our cultural past. That makes a lot of sense to me. We stack our boxes in the way we've been conditioned to think is the best.
[btw, I wasn't sure if, in Adam's last paragraph, he was addressing me personally or the whole forum, so I should make clear that I'm neither a jazz hater or a blues lover, my true allegiances lie elsewhere. I listen to music that carries those labels occasionally and enjoy it.]
I suspect that 'jazz' (for want of a better label) became 'intellectualised' with the bebop movement. Is that a fair statement?
If so - how? How did the bebop movement take a musical form with a slightly less than respectable image (but not less than proficient skill) and manage to elevate it to the higher echelons previously reserved for the classical elite? Is it just down to the difference between implicit and explicit technicality? or in other words did they just musically 'shout louder' about how clever they were? [This is not a dig at bebop by the way.]
Last Edited by on Oct 06, 2010 7:48 AM
"I never thought I'd end up defending rap, I personally can't stand much of what passes for it nowadays, but folks seem to typically base deeply held perceptions on a very small sample."
I (and I'm sure Isaacullah) know EXACTLY how you feel! ;-)
I've had that argument, but I do still like to stir the pot every now and then!
"So is hip-hop cerebral music because some of us need to learn to understand it before we can listen and enjoy it?"
The point I was trying to make is that the extent to which - or otherwise - a piece of music appeals to any one, or excites their cerebrum, to get to the topic, is not dependent on how musically sophisticated or unsophisticated it is.
Hip hop simply came to mind as an example of my own taste; I could have used Johann Strauss and Viennese dance music music instead - which I don't like either - but that didn't come to mind.
I went on try and clarify my point about a music's sophistication or lack of it not necessarily having a bearing on its cerebralness - yes, I know that's not a proper word - by giving the two examples of Reich and Nyman: one astonishingly complex and clever, the other childishly simple; yet both having a very powerful effect, on me that is. ---------- YouTube SlimHarpMick
@VLUN "It reminds me of 'High Fidelity' where the hero discusses how to order his record collection - a familiar dilemma for me! There are always exceptions that defy being pigeonholed into one box.
Once you've put filled the boxes, there is a natural urge to stack them in some order - question is which way?"
Aaargh! Don't...I've been staring at my collection for 2 months, pondering the issue, only sorted the mail order Blues Collection so far, as they're all numbered ...Already having sleepless nights wondering what to do after that...Does Bo Diddley go under "B" for Bo, "D" for Diddley, or "M" for McDaniel? I know full well that once they're all filed, I'll only play the same 10 over & over again! :-)
LOL. When I moved house, my 1000 or so albums (and a similar number of 7" and CDs) got jumbled up during the packing and unpacking stage. I vowed they would be reordered more logically. I moved in 1999. Guess what? ;-)
"Bobo, that's one song out of how many hundreds of thousands, why not some De La Soul lyrics?
We can all pull the same trick to support, or otherwise our standpoints. We can all find banal, or enlightening lyrics in any genre if we try hard enough."
OK fair point, but does that mean we can make no general statements about that genre (or any other genre for that matter) that captures most of what the genre's about, because we can always find at least one counter example? Everytime I'm forced to listen to rap it's much pretty close to the lyrics I posted above. Is that not representative of where MOST of that genre is today?
It's an interesting question.
I'm not sure I agree with eveything Adam said regarding jazz. I understand that Jazz isn't one thing. I like Cream's Sunshine of Your Love, and Ginger Baker is a jazz drummer. Does that mean I like Jazz? Really? I think that's a stretch. If I say that i don't like jazz and it a true statement for 80% of the jazz that's out there..isn't my statement generally an accurate one?
Cerebral music is all in the perception. Most people here probably consider this strongly cerebral music, but I hear raw power, energy, and emotion. When I listen to it, it makes my gut twist in the same way blues does. it REALLY grooves, too! The whole tune sounds strangely contorted, and in that respect as though it's constanly trying to untwist itself. Levy's solo at 1:30 is incredibly filled with emotion, and you can hear him squeezing every last drop out of the harp. This, to me, is every bit as raw and dirty as any straight up blues solo I've ever heard.
