# Twenty Four Preludes



## StevenOBrien

Greetings Talkclassicalians!

I've just finished writing a cycle of twenty four preludes for piano in every key. This work has been quite a labor for the past 7 months of my life, and I'm absolutely overjoyed to finally be able to share it with you all. I hope you all enjoy it and I look forward to hearing your thoughts, questions, feedback, suggestions, etc. etc.

*Listen*

__
https://soundcloud.com/stevenobrien%2Fsets

*Score*
http://www.scribd.com/doc/94567505/Twenty-Four-Preludes-Op-2

*Etc.*
MP3s: http://www.steven-obrien.net/Portfolio/Twenty Four Preludes Op. 2 [MP3].rar
Sibelius file: http://www.steven-obrien.net/Portfolio/Twenty Four Preludes for Piano Op 2.sib
MIDI file: http://www.steven-obrien.net/Portfolio/Twenty Four Preludes Op 2.mid

As I assume the majority of you will not want to take the time to listen to the entire 55 minute work, I've ordered the preludes into a list of my own personal recommendations, separated into fast and slow preludes for your convenience. My aim was to write the cycle in such a way that made it acceptable to be listened to as both a set of self standing pieces and also as a complete cohesive work, so if you enjoy listening to them separately, I strongly recommend you go back and take the time to listen to them as a set, from start to finish.

*Fast*
1. Prelude No. 7 in A major
2. Prelude No. 8 in F# minor
3. Prelude No. 17 in Ab major
4. Prelude No. 9 in E major
5. Prelude No. 14 in Eb minor
6. Prelude No. 22 in G minor
7. Prelude No. 2 in A minor
8. Prelude No. 24 in D minor
9. Prelude No. 4 in E minor
10. Prelude No. 3 in G major
11. Prelude No. 18 in F minor
12. Prelude No. 16 in Bb minor
13. Prelude No. 13 in F# major

*Slow*
1. Prelude No. 1 in C major
2. Prelude No. 21 in Bb major
3. Prelude No. 23 in F major
4. Prelude No. 20 in C minor
5. Prelude No. 12 in G# minor
6. Prelude No. 10 in C# minor
7. Prelude No. 11 in B major
8. Prelude No. 15 in Db major
9. Prelude No. 6 in B minor
10. Prelude No. 5 in D major
11. Prelude No. 19 in Eb major

Thank you for taking the time to listen!
-Steven O'Brien


----------



## Kopachris

You posted your WIP here before, and I was intrigued. The music sounds very good. It'll take me a while to give more in-depth criticism, as I don't have time to listen to them all just yet.


----------



## StevenOBrien

Kopachris said:


> You posted your WIP here before, and I was intrigued. The music sounds very good. It'll take me a while to give more in-depth criticism, as I don't have time to listen to them all just yet.


I look forward to your feedback. 

And yes, I forgot to mention that. I've previously posted about half of these preludes here before (Most of which have been revised, some heavily) in two threads, so if you've already listened and you're only interested in hearing the brand new ones, they're 7, 17 (I scrapped the original versions of these), and 18 to 24.


----------



## chee_zee

I'll be sure and give them the attention they deserve when I can, rather busy and tired at the moment though so it may be a few days before you see much from me. It's always nice to complete such an extensive labor of love, god knows it makes you 1000x better. if I recall correctly there was some extremely expressive and interesting stuff, and I loved your use of form as I felt interested in hearing more without getting bored. That's certainly another thing this type of project helps out with, building tension and relief.

A quick glance and audiation through much of the score, it seems like my kind of music, especially for the piano it seems to be my favorite style. You didn't write too many notes either vertically or horizontally as most pianist-composers try to do. Looks very motivic and development-based, will definitely be looking at this work now.


----------



## StevenOBrien

chee_zee said:


> I'll be sure and give them the attention they deserve when I can, rather busy and tired at the moment though so it may be a few days before you see much from me. It's always nice to complete such an extensive labor of love, god knows it makes you 1000x better. if I recall correctly there was some extremely expressive and interesting stuff, and I loved your use of form as I felt interested in hearing more without getting bored. That's certainly another thing this type of project helps out with, building tension and relief.
> 
> A quick glance and audiation through much of the score, it seems like my kind of music, especially for the piano it seems to be my favorite style. You didn't write too many notes either vertically or horizontally as most pianist-composers try to do. Looks very motivic and development-based, will definitely be looking at this work now.


I'm glad. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on it!


----------



## Couchie

Did you write these, or did the dove Noah sent forth finally return, bearing them so as to secure the future of the world?


----------



## chee_zee

your comments are unintelligent, unfunny, unproductive, unconstructive, poorly thought out, and a waste of all our time. go back to youngcomposers.


----------



## Kopachris

I'd actually suggest against listening to them all in one sitting. Similar figures and textures are used throughout, which helps unify the 24 preludes, but I found my mind wandering a bit more than usual. I think it would work better if listened to, say, six at a time (eight at most), and the listener let them sink in before listening to the next six or eight.

There were a couple things I noticed on particular pieces: On No. 5 and No. 7, the final resolution wasn't very... resolute. I found myself waiting for that last codetta signifying the end of the piece, but it never came. On No. 10, I liked how you started the piece with the same tempo indication that ended No. 9. Nice touch. After that, though, I started losing concentration.


----------



## Couchie

chee_zee said:


> your comments are unintelligent, unfunny, unproductive, unconstructive, poorly thought out, and a waste of all our time. go back to youngcomposers.


And why this outburst... jealous because I gave him a compliment while referring to your own spiraling yarns of drivel as nihilistic? I am quite enjoying some of these Preludes, I'll express that how I want to.


----------



## StevenOBrien

Couchie said:


> Did you write these, or did the dove Noah sent forth finally return, bearing them so as to secure the future of the world?


Hehe, thank you for your flattering words.



Kopachris said:


> I'd actually suggest against listening to them all in one sitting. Similar figures and textures are used throughout, which helps unify the 24 preludes, but I found my mind wandering a bit more than usual. I think it would work better if listened to, say, six at a time (eight at most), and the listener let them sink in before listening to the next six or eight.
> 
> There were a couple things I noticed on particular pieces: On No. 5 and No. 7, the final resolution wasn't very... resolute. I found myself waiting for that last codetta signifying the end of the piece, but it never came. On No. 10, I liked how you started the piece with the same tempo indication that ended No. 9. Nice touch. After that, though, I started losing concentration.


Well for No. 5, that was purposeful. It works so much better without a resolution than with. I find it interesting you get that impression from No. 7 though, ending on vi seemed more natural here than ending on I. I'll keep your listening suggestion in mind. Thanks for listening!


----------



## chee_zee

I'll probably make comments in the sibelius file and just send that to you, soundcloud might be a little awkward for the more detailed stuff.

also, I highly doubt my music is mere 'spiraling yarns of drivel' when I put more thought into a single note than you do your entire life's work via taneev counterpoint/canon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNm6XR5VR8g#t=16m46s

I'll not derail steven's thread any further as this is what PM's are for.


----------



## StevenOBrien

chee_zee said:


> I'll probably make comments in the sibelius file and just send that to you, soundcloud might be a little awkward for the more detailed stuff.


Cool, thanks! I'd appreciate it a lot.


----------



## MJTTOMB

I'm not completely sure what you were going for with these. From a theoretical perspective there are a lot of things in the score that make me scratch my head (improperly/awkwardly spelled leading tones, starting movements with tonic chords in second inversion,harmonic progressions that don't progress), and from a pianistic perspective there are frequently places where I question whether the musical value of what you've written is really enough to justify the often near-impossible technicalities in the music (jumping to 10ths in one hand in extremely fast passages, repeating 5-note chords in one hand in 16th notes at a breakneck tempo, etc). I listened to the whole work, and while I'm impressed by the scale of the work I was equally unimpressed with the content which seemed to fall somewhere between a sort of early-romantic pastiche without regard for common practice or a sort of modern contribution to a repertoire that is already beyond saturated with more easily approachable and enjoyable works for both performers and listeners.

Congratulations on finishing the project. For what it's worth, there's a very noticeable improvement over the course of the work. Particularly from the 17th prelude onwards, your writing actually took on a much more musical quality which was incredibly pleasant to listen to (the 21st was also very nice). I apologize if my criticisms are overly harsh, but I'd ask you to realize that the weight my criticism carries is very little compared to the weight of the fact that you clearly grew from this project, and should by all means aspire to continue and direct that growth.


----------



## StevenOBrien

MJTTOMB said:


> I'm not completely sure what you were going for with these. From a theoretical perspective there are a lot of things in the score that make me scratch my head (improperly/awkwardly spelled leading tones, starting movements with tonic chords in second inversion,harmonic progressions that don't progress), and from a pianistic perspective there are frequently places where I question whether the musical value of what you've written is really enough to justify the often near-impossible technicalities in the music (jumping to 11ths in one hand in extremely fast passages, repeating 5-note chords in one hand in 16th notes at a breakneck tempo, etc). I listened to the whole work, and while I'm impressed by the scale of the work I was equally unimpressed with the content which seemed to fall somewhere between a sort of early-romantic pastiche without regard for common practice or a sort of modern contribution to a repertoire that is already beyond saturated with more easily approachable and enjoyable works for both performers and listeners.
> 
> Congratulations on finishing the project. For what it's worth, there's a very noticeable improvement over the course of the work. Particularly from the 17th prelude onwards, your writing actually took on a much more musical quality which was incredibly pleasant to listen to (the 21st was also very nice). I apologize if my criticisms are overly harsh, but I'd ask you to realize that the weight my criticism carries is very little compared to the weight of the fact that you clearly grew from this project, and should by all means aspire to continue and direct that growth.


Thank you so much for your in-depth comment, your criticisms are not overly harsh at all! I'd much rather learn from any "mistakes" I've made and figure out how to write better music.

Improper leading tones, could you give me an example?

You make an interesting point about starting with second inversion tonic chords. Is there a particular reason why this should be avoided? Looking back, the 10th prelude would actually work better with a root tonic chord, and I'm going to revise it, but the 12th seems to work better with it.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by harmonic progressions that don't progress.

I will admit that I have some trouble expressing some of my ideas without them turning out to be overly difficult to play, in fact sometimes after I've written a first draft of a passage, I will have to go back and try to make it "as possible as possible" to play. It was on my mind a lot when writing these, and I certainly wouldn't blame a performer for editing passages slightly to make them more playable. I'm trying to work at this, and I hope that I'm improving somewhat. It probably doesn't help that I have fairly big hands either .

I'm sorry that you didn't enjoy the content, but I can only write music that I myself can enjoy. I tried to be as original as I possibly could be with these preludes and avoided actively thinking "How would Mozart or Beethoven solve this problem?", and just tried to follow on with ideas, no matter how strange or unnatural they seemed at first. But if they still seemed unoriginal and nothing but mere "pastiches" to you, there's nothing I can really do except grow, listen to more music and hope that one day you will be able to listen to something of mine and find it original.

Music in my view isn't like technology. Old styles don't become obsolete once everyone else has moved on from them, there's always something new, interesting and original to be found in them, there's always an infinite number of evolutionary paths away from them waiting to be taken. While my style may definitely resemble that of early romanticism, I'm certainly not trying to meticulously imitate it, I'm just writing down what's in my head. Forgive me if I appear to be stuck in the past to you, but what I write is fun, new and interesting to me, and that's all that matters to me.

Also, I'm glad you like the 21st, it's very special to me for reasons which I wont disclose for fear of attaching a subjective meaning to it .

Thanks again for your comment, I cannot overstate how much I appreciate it.
-Steve


----------



## chee_zee

if it's playable by you then hats off, don't change it. shawn lane could play 9ths at very very fast speed like it was nothing. by harmonies not progressing he means a general lack of tension/relief going on, it's stagnant as if you were to write a piece entirely in whole tone, which mjttomb would probably be the best person to pick out such a remark judging from his avatar. 

some of the comments I've already made deal with this also, the harmonies don't go a long way in creating a sense of build up and not much else goes on to help this (dynamics, rubato etc). I'd suggest furthering your harmonic language or at least really mastering the ear training side of things so you can hear why common practice sounding stuff tends to resolve and progress in the manner it does. this is actually one of the biggest criticisms my works receive, so it's something I've been working toward lately myself.


----------



## StevenOBrien

chee_zee said:


> if it's playable by you then hats off, don't change it. shawn lane could play 9ths at very very fast speed like it was nothing. by harmonies not progressing he means a general lack of tension/relief going on, it's stagnant as if you were to write a piece entirely in whole tone, which mjttomb would probably be the best person to pick out such a remark judging from his avatar.
> 
> some of the comments I've already made deal with this also, the harmonies don't go a long way in creating a sense of build up and not much else goes on to help this (dynamics, rubato etc). I'd suggest furthering your harmonic language or at least really mastering the ear training side of things so you can hear why common practice sounding stuff tends to resolve and progress in the manner it does. this is actually one of the biggest criticisms my works receive, so it's something I've been working toward lately myself.


Okay, Thanks! I'll concentrate my efforts on harmony studies.


----------



## chee_zee

you might try transcribing simpler and shorter piano pieces that have a good feel for the idea of 'progression' and buildup. I personally recommend reuben kee for that. he's also a good example of what someone can do as a composer pianist without being a virtuoso, I've yet to hear piano pieces as good as his written by anyone past the 19th century.


----------



## MJTTOMB

I'd have to look over the score again in reference to issue of leading tones. Off the top of my head there was a point (I think it is in the B minor) where you're tonicizing F# with a C# chord, but you have an F-natural leading up to the F# in the bass while in the right hand that same tone is spelled more appropriately as an E#. Also there are a number of places where grace notes could be spelled better- one that struck me in particular was when you had Bb grace notes between B-naturals, which would look nicer and make more sense theoretically as A#'s.

As for harmonic progressions that fail to progress, in 23 you move from IV to iii, which is something of a bad idea. While iii can be beautiful in some contexts, it really doesn't have a lot of applicability in common practice unless it's directly preceding vi. It's an awkward chord to use, particularly in the context you've used it. You also have an occasional tendency to stagnate in a sort of I-V-I lull, which is very common and often very effective but it easily becomes drab without, as chee-zee mentioned, more dynamic contrast or color.

As for the second inversion tonic chord, it's problematic as a start because functionally it's not really acting as a tonic. With the exception of a somewhat uncommon arpeggiated 6/4, you scarcely ever find a second-inversion tonic triad in common practice music that actually functions as a tonic. Typically they actually serve a dominant function (in the form of cadential 6/4 chords), acting as a suspension over the dominant. When you use one at the beginning of the phrase, it destabilizes the tonic and tends to falsely establish the dominant as a tonic.


----------



## chee_zee

do I smell a false exposition intro in the subdominant in a revision?


----------



## Couchie

chee_zee said:


> also, I highly doubt my music is mere 'spiraling yarns of drivel' when I put more thought into a single note than you do your entire life's work via taneev counterpoint/canon:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNm6XR5VR8g#t=16m46s


Anybody can be meticulous... _inspired _is another matter.


----------



## StevenOBrien

chee_zee said:


> you might try transcribing simpler and shorter piano pieces that have a good feel for the idea of 'progression' and buildup. I personally recommend reuben kee for that. he's also a good example of what someone can do as a composer pianist without being a virtuoso, I've yet to hear piano pieces as good as his written by anyone past the 19th century.


I'll look into him. Can you recommend any pieces of his in particular?



MJTTOMB said:


> I'd have to look over the score again in reference to issue of leading tones. Off the top of my head there was a point (I think it is in the B minor) where you're tonicizing F# with a C# chord, but you have an F-natural leading up to the F# in the bass while in the right hand that same tone is spelled more appropriately as an E#. Also there are a number of places where grace notes could be spelled better- one that struck me in particular was when you had Bb grace notes between B-naturals, which would look nicer and make more sense theoretically as A#'s.
> 
> As for harmonic progressions that fail to progress, in 23 you move from IV to iii, which is something of a bad idea. While iii can be beautiful in some contexts, it really doesn't have a lot of applicability in common practice unless it's directly preceding vi. It's an awkward chord to use, particularly in the context you've used it. You also have an occasional tendency to stagnate in a sort of I-V-I lull, which is very common and often very effective but it easily becomes drab without, as chee-zee mentioned, more dynamic contrast or color.
> 
> As for the second inversion tonic chord, it's problematic as a start because functionally it's not really acting as a tonic. With the exception of a somewhat uncommon arpeggiated 6/4, you scarcely ever find a second-inversion tonic triad in common practice music that actually functions as a tonic. Typically they actually serve a dominant function (in the form of cadential 6/4 chords), acting as a suspension over the dominant. When you use one at the beginning of the phrase, it destabilizes the tonic and tends to falsely establish the dominant as a tonic.


Ah, the B minor prelude was written before I had any knowledge of music theory, I'll go back and make corrections. Do you recall any similar errors in other preludes?

Thanks for your explanations!



chee_zee said:


> do I smell a false exposition intro in the subdominant in a revision?


What are you talking about?



Couchie said:


> Anybody can be meticulous... _inspired _is another matter.


Drop it and stop flaming each other on my thread please. This isn't the place for it, it's incredibly annoying :/.


----------



## chee_zee

A false recap is when you enter the recap in the subdominant key rather than tonic, so by extension a false expo would be when you do an expo in the subdominant. also, false implies it comes before the real thing, a counter expo as in fugue would be after the real expo. it doesn't have to be the subdom, but it seems 99 percent of the time it is. 

If I were you, just proofread for iii chords you should be able to rework them. A cool trick would be to do modal interchange, instead of IV-iii make it seem like minor and do iv-bIII. obviously, if there's a lot of these x-iii or iii-x progressions, where X is anything but tonic or submediant, then you might want to think of several other ways to change them on a case by case basis.


----------



## Tomposer

I've listened to a few of the pieces and enjoyed the novelty (cloaked in simple harmonies) and the expression of your own voice, which even seems to be developing throughout the preludes.

Some of the pieces sound a little on the difficult side... Now, I don't go in for harsh criticism - not my thing. I will only offer a personal perspective which you may take or leave... I know some people I've met on-line in the past sharply diverge with my opinion about this...

I think calling yourself a composer these days is contingent either upon eventually having your music performed or recorded well - there are simply too many around who don't or can't take that step, forming a sort of glut of decent-but-not-very-outstanding music which remains digital, midi and infrequently heard.

That has lead me to only write to the standard of the performer who is due to play the piece (these days I rarely bother writing music if I think it's unlikely to get played at some stage, although occasionally it's a gamble). This means a few things:

When it's performed it will be impressively performed. Performers want to sound good, they will make the most of a work which helps them sound good. Your music will sound better than it appears on paper - this is important because it is very possible for a piece to sound *worse* than it appears on paper. I've been told by more than one eminent music person that it is the composer's job to follow a piece through all stages of its development; in other words it's not finished until it has been performed or recorded well. After all whose job is it if not the composer's?

But it goes beyond that - understanding the scope of what you're writing for provides you with definite practical parameters and limitations which indeed guide more aesthetic or artistic choices. I think that computers have lead us away from this a little.

This is just me - wouldn't necessarily recommend it - but any time I'm working on something challenging I either work with a performer on the section (sometimes only by e-mail) or play it myself. Even if I can't really play the instrument, I borrow one. The piano is exceptional, and for this reason I married a pianist  .

Well that's quite lengthy. In short, look at having your music performed, and don't let the composition itself inhibit this pursuit. (You may be already on the way to doing this).


----------



## chee_zee

Tomposer said:


> for this reason I married a pianist  .


may want to make sure to log out off your account when you get off to computer, would hate for the wife to see that


----------



## StevenOBrien

Tomposer said:


> I've listened to a few of the pieces and enjoyed the novelty (cloaked in simple harmonies) and the expression of your own voice, which even seems to be developing throughout the preludes.
> 
> Some of the pieces sound a little on the difficult side... Now, I don't go in for harsh criticism - not my thing. I will only offer a personal perspective which you may take or leave... I know some people I've met on-line in the past sharply diverge with my opinion about this...
> 
> I think calling yourself a composer these days is contingent either upon eventually having your music performed or recorded well - there are simply too many around who don't or can't take that step, forming a sort of glut of decent-but-not-very-outstanding music which remains digital, midi and infrequently heard.
> 
> That has lead me to only write to the standard of the performer who is due to play the piece (these days I rarely bother writing music if I think it's unlikely to get played at some stage, although occasionally it's a gamble). This means a few things:
> 
> When it's performed it will be impressively performed. Performers want to sound good, they will make the most of a work which helps them sound good. Your music will sound better than it appears on paper - this is important because it is very possible for a piece to sound *worse* than it appears on paper. I've been told by more than one eminent music person that it is the composer's job to follow a piece through all stages of its development; in other words it's not finished until it has been performed or recorded well. After all whose job is it if not the composer's?
> 
> But it goes beyond that - understanding the scope of what you're writing for provides you with definite practical parameters and limitations which indeed guide more aesthetic or artistic choices. I think that computers have lead us away from this a little.
> 
> This is just me - wouldn't necessarily recommend it - but any time I'm working on something challenging I either work with a performer on the section (sometimes only by e-mail) or play it myself. Even if I can't really play the instrument, I borrow one. The piano is exceptional, and for this reason I married a pianist  .
> 
> Well that's quite lengthy. In short, look at having your music performed, and don't let the composition itself inhibit this pursuit. (You may be already on the way to doing this).


Some of the preludes are indeed very difficult. A fair amount of what I hear in my head is actually physically impossible to play, which is very frustrating, because even after it's dumbed down to make it at least playable, it can still be very difficult. It's a sort of delicate balance between making something playable and sticking as closely as possible to what I hear in my head. I hope over time the music I hear in my head will be more playable, I assume it's just a matter of training oneself and practicing.

My personal view on the matter is that I would want the performer to play as closely to what's written as possible, but if it's an absolute necessity, they can freely choose to edit difficult parts to make them more playable.

You make a very good point. More than anything else in the world, I want to hear my music performed, but unfortunately I don't know any pianists willing to perform or record them.

I certainly don't consider the preludes a finished job just because they're up on Soundcloud. Once I've had time to chew them over and revise them slightly, I'll be making preparations to have the sheet music published, and perhaps one day, I'll be able to secure a performance.


----------



## Tomposer

StevenOBrien said:


> More than anything else in the world, I want to hear my music performed, but unfortunately I don't know any pianists willing to perform or record them.


Many people have different points of view about this matter both now and historically. Some composers are very intent on performers doing exactly what they're told, and others are more lax. I'm definitely in the latter category (quite extremely), but perhaps you prefer to work differently.

I've found that considering the performer first and foremost does more than simply make the music easier to perform - I've discovered (as I mentioned) that it provides practical parameters that guide my musical choices, and I've found this quite useful creatively, not just practically.

But I'm only putting forth my own perspective - of course people will differ in opinion on this matter.


----------



## StevenOBrien

So I'm planning to upload all of these to youtube in the near future, and I've been working on a visualization for the first prelude.

I'd REALLY appreciate any comments or feedback you guys have on this (Be sure to watch in HD and full screen):






So what's going on here? Well, in the background, we have an audio spectrum that represents what's going on aurally, and in the foreground, we have a piano roll scrolling to the left to represent what's happening musically, with a bulge to emphasize the present and a ripple effect to emphasize the near past.

If you don't know what a piano roll is, a bar represents a note being played. While a bar is inside the bulge, the note is being held down. Height represents pitch, so the higher bars represent higher notes, and the lower bars represent lower notes.

Thanks!


----------



## shangoyal

Prelude No. 1 in C major is a magical piece. I love it.


----------



## StevenOBrien

shangoyal said:


> Prelude No. 1 in C major is a magical piece. I love it.


Thanks! I'm glad you like it.


----------



## helpmeplslol

Excellent visualization! Tasteful as can be, and matches the piece.


----------



## Ukko

Hah. Interesting comments so far. Steve, somewhere in the dim past I suggested (obliquely) that a piece of yours reminded me of Satie's music. As you may have guessed, it was the illusion of stasis I was referring to. For me, 'illusion' is accurate; that piece did move. I have saved the mp3s, will listen in moderate bites over the weekend. Early next week I will give you my verdict - upon which, I realize, your career teeters.



 (have to add this, some of the members get confused re my motives)


----------



## StevenOBrien

helpmeplslol said:


> Excellent visualization! Tasteful as can be, and matches the piece.





Ukko said:


> Hah. Interesting comments so far. Steve, somewhere in the dim past I suggested (obliquely) that a piece of yours reminded me of Satie's music. As you may have guessed, it was the illusion of stasis I was referring to. For me, 'illusion' is accurate; that piece did move. I have saved the mp3s, will listen in moderate bites over the weekend. Early next week I will give you my verdict - upon which, I realize, your career teeters.
> 
> 
> 
> (have to add this, some of the members get confused re my motives)


Thanks! Also, this is quite an unexpected bump. I posted this nearly two years ago .


----------



## Ukko

StevenOBrien said:


> Thanks! Also, this is quite an unexpected bump. I posted this nearly two years ago .


Hah! So glad you have survived without my verdict for so long!


----------

