# How can you tell when a recording / performance of a newer musical work is good?



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I hope this is an honest question, not a thinly disguised apologetic promoting common practice music. Look, I'm into Ligeti, Ginastera, Grisey, Bartok, and even a bit of Schoenberg now and then. What puzzles me is how to know whether it's the music itself, or a performance, or the listener that fails if something doesn't connect.

While this happens all the time with common practice music, it seems even more likely when the entire practice or musical syntax is unfamiliar.

Now I expect someguy to come along soon and advise, not without some justification, to stop worrying and just listen. But we wouldn't have much of a forum if that's all we did and I'd like to take advantage of any opinions available.

I have an ulterior motive. I'm interested in a large series of recordings called "Music from 6 Continents." It's a very prolific series from the 90s mostly premiering recordings of composers completely unknown to me.















Some of the samples sound quite interesting, but how does one spend hard earned funds and precious dwindling time investing in such a long shot?

And if anyone has experience with these 6 continents recordings and can advise, that would be icing on the cake.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Addendum: Much of the new music I hear is from a college campus. It gives me pause when I hear their renditions of well known works leading me to wonder if it's not the newer work itself that is the problem.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I personally don't try to evaluate performances unless there's some really obvious problem.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

You have to figure out where your boundaries of enjoyment are, and use them to decipher between recordings. Everyone isn't impressed nor unimpressed by the same things.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Re-appearing soloists on the CD - and to less extent the focusing on a single composer - is more likely to guarantee an even level in the production, I think.

Also, for compilations I prefer that there is at least one work that seems to be substantial/ambitious.


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

Weston, It's a great question. I almost always come to a new work having already heard about the composer from somewhere--whether praise here on TC or other sources (Gramophone, National Public Radio, the Guardian's Tom Service). Some folks around here have their finger on the pulse much more that I do (remember the New Generations thread, which has a lot of good recommendations of recently composed works by young composers). Occasionally, if I have found that certain series that have works that I enjoy (such ECM's "New Series" or Naxos' "American Classics" or DG's "20/21" series), I venture out onto something I've not heard before.

But that's more how I discover it rather than how I evaluate it. If on hearing a work (repeatedly) and still don't get it, I always presume it's me that's the problem. I don't presume that it's the composer nor the performers. A new work can be like listening to a foreign language. It almost always takes a while to overcome the "otherness" of the new. In fact, immediate intelligibility sometimes means that, in the long run, it may prove less rewarding. Not always, but often enough. So I always presume that I'm the problem. I therefore don't judge such works -- at least when it comes to works composed since 1975. I use 1975 as a rough date to distinguish "modern" from "contemporary". For contemporary works, anything composed after 1975, I don't think enough listeners have heard them to make much of a judgment. And usually with works that post-date 1975 it's rare that there is more than one recorded performance (i.e. a performance by true professionals as opposed to the YouTube stuff by amateurs or local university musicians). Occasionally, a work that postdates 1975 gets me to study it, to study the score, read a musicological analysis. That may put me into a better position to distinguish whether a problem is the performer. But that presumes that the composer has already won me over to its value.

Your investigation of that series illustrates an important issue for me. As you asked, why invest time and money in works that may not be good? My own rule of thumb is to invest at least 10% of my purchases in contemporary composers. I think a lot of classical music lovers play it too safe; they listen not only to only old works but only old performances of old works. I'm willing to make lots of mistakes, both in exploring and in purchasing. It is a joy to me to find either a great new performance of an older work, or better, a composer, old or new, that I've never heard before. But I want to support new composers whenever I can, whether attending their concerts or buying their recordings. I have very limited funds. But I feel the risk is worth it. I don't need to be right about my judgments, either in how I spend my time or how I spend my limited money.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

OP: Simple. I wait for Mahlerian to tell me!!! :tiphat:


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Excellent question and one that I have raised before but did not get satisfactory answers. When it comes to contemporary music of even pieces by Seconnd Viennesse School composers, it can be difficult to tell if it was a fine performance or not: the best way is to sit down with the score in front if you and read listen concurrently. Make up your own mind. But if you cannot read music and that can be not an easy task for me coming fresh to certain pieces for the first time, you would need to take your time. But for sure though, there is nothing in saying and feeling suspicious about performance quality with any piece whether Ligeti or Mozart.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2014)

Stop worrying and just listen.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2014)

I give a rare "like" to SomeGuy for this intelligent and pithy response.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I'm pleased to see you have an interest in the Vienna Modern Masters recordings. I own the complete catalog of these recordings, all of which I've purchased due to my interest in new music. They contain a mixed bag of quality, but there are a few masterpieces among the recordings, including the Jean-Claude Wolff Symphony on VMM3001 (the first release) and nearly everything by Nancy van de Vate, the president of this recording project. (Yes, I'm a van de Vate fan! She signed her _Hamlet_ disc for me -- VMM4008.)

Do you like what you hear? That's really the only way to go about assessing a new work, one with perhaps only a single recording. When there is nothing else to judge against, it's just you and your ears and emotions and expectations. I was "floored" when I first heard the Wolff Symphony on VMM3001, and that prompted me to explore further VMM discs. Not all have proven interesting or delightful to me, but there is a great deal of good new music on that series, and I'm glad I have access to it.

Enjoy your hobby. Keep listening, keep exploring. New music needs folks like you.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

TalkingHead said:


> I give a rare "like" to SomeGuy for this intelligent and *pithy *response.


Pithy?... Pithy? hpowders has a patent on that word! I think you may owe him some royalties or something like that.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Pithy?... Pithy? hpowders has a patent on that word! I think you may owe him some royalties or something like that.


I provided him with my bank information. I expect to wake up tomorrow with a handsome addition to the treasury.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2014)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Pithy?... Pithy? hpowders has a patent on that word! I think you may owe him some royalties or something like that.


I had Mein Herr von HPowders precisely in mind when I used the term "pithy". I wanted to credit him, but could not find out how to insert the "copyright" symbol.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

TalkingHead said:


> I had Mein Herr von HPowders precisely in mind when I used the term "pithy". I wanted to credit him, but could not find out how to insert the "copyright" symbol.


hpowders Pithy Forum Posts, Inc.©


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

TalkingHead said:


> I had Mein Herr von HPowders precisely in mind when I used the term "pithy". I wanted to credit him, but could not find out how to insert the "copyright" symbol.


Come on. Aren't you computer literate?


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2014)

Only on good days ...


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

We've removed my trepidation of getting into the Vienna Modern Masters series and got some fun discussion going, so I am pleased and grateful. I have a lot of music to explore this afternoon.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Weston said:


> I hope this is an honest question, not a thinly disguised apologetic promoting common practice music. Look, I'm into Ligeti, Ginastera, Grisey, Bartok, and even a bit of Schoenberg now and then. What puzzles me is how to know whether it's the music itself, or a performance, or the listener that fails if something doesn't connect.
> 
> While this happens all the time with common practice music, it seems even more likely when the entire practice or musical syntax is unfamiliar.
> 
> ...


Here's the kind of logic I use in assessing recordings I have not heard.

*Music From Six Continents:* First, the internet listing does have sound samples, a big plus. This gives me an overall clue as to what kind of music this is.
Second, these appear to be Polish composers, judging from the names, and it is played by a Polish radio orchestra, so that's a good sign: Poles playing Polish music is a good thing, as far as having cultural context and understanding interpretations.
Third, I like the cover.

*The Orpheus Oracle:* Not as much info on this one, but the Orpheus theme running throughout the titles is interesting. This appears to be a more international grouping. The cover has an abstract painting, so this is right down my alley.

Plus, overall, it's good to see a record label (Vienna Modern Masters) which is named after, and apparently dedicated to modern music. The "Vienna" in the label name might mean that this is a CD of German or Austrian origin and manufacture, which is s good sign for me of high quality manufacturing.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Here's the kind of logic I use in assessing recordings I have not heard.
> 
> *Music From Six Continents:* First, the internet listing does have sound samples, a big plus. This gives me an overall clue as to what kind of music this is.
> Second, these appear to be Polish composers, judging from the names, and it is played by a Polish radio orchestra, so that's a good sign: Poles playing Polish music is a good thing, as far as having cultural context and understanding interpretations.
> ...


You might be better off with better info than this post - 
- Vienna Modern Masters is an American company, I think
- the CD shown doesn't show mainly Polish composers (or a Polish orchestra)

Fortunately, there appears to be detailed reviews of the series on musicwebinternational - eg http://www.musicweb-international.com/classRev/2002/Sept02/6continents1999.htm

This is a really useful website for reviews of CDs written by people who have heard the CD, have an interest in that music, and who have a reliable track-record in CD reviewing


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

The white pictured one has no Polish composer. The Ruse Philharmonic is a provincial Bulgarian orchestra. I know the release with Lorentzen´s piano concerto in the series but wasn´t impressed with that one.


----------



## FLighT (Mar 7, 2013)

hpowders said:


> OP: Simple. I wait for Mahlerian to tell me!!! :tiphat:


:lol: Mahlerian is always a good read.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Gee, I'd really hate to see anyone waste good money on a crummy CD of bad music. You'd probably be better off using your own intuition, and not listening to people on internet forums, or visiting any strange websites.


----------



## LarryShone (Aug 29, 2014)

Its quite simple for me. I don't like much 'modern classical' or however you label it. There are one or two modern composers that I get, but it seems in the modern world lyricism takes a back seat to artistic endeavour!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Well, it can be pretty clear that something has gone wrong, or that intonation is off, or that the performance contains merely the notes without much in the way of interpretation, but as with music of earlier eras, taste plays a big role in which renditions of pieces we end up preferring.










Very unfair to compare the two, perhaps, but it seems to me that the first of these two has a harder time with those repeated-note hammering gestures that recur throughout the piece (only two minutes or so of each would be enough for a comparison), and the more reverberant acoustic doesn't reveal as much of the polyphony of the individual phrases.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Wow! That's a pretty profound difference.^ The second one flows more naturally but the first has its own molecular/motivic quality that is not without some interest too. Hmmm . . . I've learned something from this, but I'm not sure how to interpret it yet.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Weston said:


> I hope this is an honest question, not a thinly disguised apologetic promoting common practice music. Look, I'm into Ligeti, Ginastera, Grisey, Bartok, and even a bit of Schoenberg now and then. What puzzles me is how to know whether it's the music itself, or a performance, or the listener that fails if something doesn't connect.
> 
> While this happens all the time with common practice music, it seems even more likely when the entire practice or musical syntax is unfamiliar.
> 
> ...


Many of those recordings you cite leave 'the quandary' as moot, i.e. there is often only one recorded performance of much of contemporary music, so if you want to hear those composer's work, you go with what there is. Other times, of course, there will be more than one recording, but often -- well the single and only recording of much contemporary music is a common enough state of affairs.

For the rest, and your Q, just as you have formed an idea for yourself of 'what is good' about more common practice rep, that all came about with familiarity with the works and familiarity of the different performances -- and learning to discern -- also comes about with a like familiarity.

I like to think -- though it is actually naive -- that once you hear, say, Karl Böhm conducting Mozart, that the listener would realize the best of Karajan's conducting of the same rep is completely bent out of shape, not at all 'in style'; the point there being that people vary in their individual preferences, so some will preferring Karajan's wall of sound, say in Mozart or Beethoven over the buoyancy and transparency of a Bohm recording of the same works.

You might want to research further and see how many of the recordings in the set offer have any alternative choice of recording, if any. That might help alleviate your 'what if' quandary 

P.s. I get that "money is money," but too, how many discs for what amount? Looked at that way, it might not be so 'costly' as you are thinking, even if they are not by some of the world's greatest orchestras.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Some of you might want to visit the Vienna Modern Masters website:

http://gdv.home.xs4all.nl/vmm/

Here is the opening page blurb, from president Nancy van de Vate:

*Vienna Modern Masters *is a nonprofit American company which produces and internationally distributes compact discs of contemporary classical music. Its *Music from Six Continents *3000-series, the company's principal focus, presents distinguished orchestral and orchestral-choral music from around the world. Its *Portrait, Chamber Music and Solo *2000-series primarily presents unusual new music in smaller forms. *Vienna Modern Masters *has no stylistic, gender, ethnic, geographic or other bias in its choice of music to appear on the label. Its only criterion is musical merit. For the present, for recordings VMM itself supervises, the company prefers to record in Eastern Europe, where superb orchestras and soloists are particularly accustomed to recording new music at moderate cost. Pre-recorded master tapes of excellent quality may also be submitted for VMM's consideration by composers, conductors, publishers or performers from any country in the world.

Nancy Van de Vate

The website features links to the catalog, composer information, and press releases. The "modern" music featured on VMM discs range from the highly dissonant, atonal, nontonal stuff to romantic-styled melodic works which adhere to traditional harmonies and rhythms. In other words, a wide variety of styles.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I really enjoy comparing multiple recordings of a single work, but not in order to evaluate which is better. Instead, I just want to hear how one performer (or set of performers) play it differently than another. I don't sit in the seat of judgement, but of curiosity.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

When I am confronted with a similar problem--is this enticing album really going to satisfy me?--I proceed similarly as suggested: listen to the pieces on YT, if available, then go to the label website and hear samples. If this is still not enough, then I would read about the composers (Allmusic and Wikipedia, preferably, or other sites like the label or whatever google turns up). How long have these composers been active? Have they won any awards or recognition? Is this the only recorded work, or is there more by the composer available (preferably on other labels)? If the composer appears to be established and has albums on more than one label, particularly a well-known label, then I would give that composer further consideration. If the composer was available only on the obscure label, then I'd likely pass. No matter what I learned about the other composers, I would go with the album that is devoted entirely to one composer. I would feel (rightly or wrongly) that that composer is more widely known, or that the pieces on the album are considered more important, hence meriting a full album and not just a slot on a sampler. I have taken too many ill informed chances in the past (LP collection), so I am very critical and want to be as sure as possible nowadays (CD collection). The really important composers will get picked up by the major labels; the rest are on YT, and if not, who cares? My collection really has gotten pretty large, so I am not going to be missing anything. Sometimes, though, I will just follow my hunch. Often I have later regretted the unnecessary expenditure, but there have been some very nice surprises, too. It depends on how wealthy I'm feeling and if I can afford to take a little chance now and again, or if I have had a lot of expenses and need to tighten my belt.


----------



## Rhythm (Nov 2, 2013)

If I may, Mahlerian and Weston, this contradistinction would be my point of view when comparing the two pianists' performances of Boulez's _Incises_ heard in the videos posted above:

Pianist Sébastien Vichard served the music through his technique and interpretation; for any number of reasons, Pianist Yegor Shevtsov served himself not the music through his interpretation.

Those two pianists' performances were heard rather than observed.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Weston said:


> Addendum: Much of the new music I hear is from a college campus. It gives me pause when I hear their renditions of well known works leading me to wonder if it's not the newer work itself that is the problem.


It is not atypical that such a 'youth group' -- though already proficient, at least -- are proficient in the more common practice rep up through, say Stravinsky's _Petrushka_ or later music which still remains more traditionally "tonal", but often right after that line, they have trouble with both counting and intonation of works which are in a more 'advanced' vocabulary.

It is maybe no more surprising how even a lay person's ears will near to automatically 'fill in and auto-correct' what is heard slightly or more so out of tune when what is being played is also in that more common practice realm of harmony, while again, the moment the harmonic vocabulary jumps just outside of that, the auto-compensation factor shuts off, having little or no experience, and therefore not a conditioned relfex.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Well, it can be pretty clear that something has gone wrong, or that intonation is off, or that the performance contains merely the notes without much in the way of interpretation, but as with music of earlier eras, taste plays a big role in which renditions of pieces we end up preferring.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The first sounds like a pianist who has yet to be able to rid themselves of a very Romantic approach to music, even when it is not Romantic music... so I consider him "in his own way" and very much "in the way" of hearing this piece more as it should be / is.

The second is very much personally 'out of the way' and therefore more deeply into the score "as it is." This pianist _while he is still very much giving of himself_ is also _very much at the service of the piece,_ i.e. he is giving us "the piece," and not so much out front "a piece of himself." I hugely prefer the latter, would not even consider the first.

ADD: I will prefer the latter sort of performer each and every time, including those who are performing Romantic era music.


----------



## stevens (Jun 23, 2014)

science said:


> I really enjoy comparing multiple recordings of a single work, but not in order to evaluate which is better. Instead, I just want to hear how one performer (or set of performers) play it differently than another. I don't sit in the seat of judgement, but of curiosity.


This is EXACTLY my view! :tiphat:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> hpowders Pithy Forum Posts, Inc.©


Too long! _______________


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2014)

To get around to an answer to the question, I'd say that the way you tell is by listening to it.

Your listening has to be informed, natch. That is, you have to have listened to a lot of other stuff.

But what I find most annoying or depressing or disturbing or whatever about this whole business is the notion that people very much want to have their work done for them. They want safety. They want to protect their investments.

Well, come on. CDs are not that expensive. Compared to rent or car payments or utilities or even a night out from time to time, CDs are very much less expensive. And differ from that delicious dinner at the Lebanese restaurant on Belmont in being rather permanent. You can eat that particular dinner once. You want the same dishes again? You have to pay again. The CD? You buy it once, and you listen to it as many times as you want.

That's one thing. The other is that in a very real, and legally binding way, there are no crummy CDs or great CDs or even sort of OK CDs until you listen to them. And your list of "greats" will differ from other people's. Sure, there are badly mastered CDs. I had one once that had simply transfered tracks from scratchy, old LPs to CD, without any cleaning up or other electronic wizardry. But it had music that no other CD has, so I put up with the poor quality.

You really and truly have to live your own life, anyway. No matter how hard you try to get other people to live it for you, you still have to live it yourself. Might as well get used to it. I think the discussions would improve, too, if you did. Instead of the interminable threads with more or less accurate speculation about what this or that person might be able to like, we would talk about real experiences with listening that we've actually done for ourselves. 

I know. Too radical.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Rhythm said:


> If I may, Mahlerian and Weston, this contradistinction would be my point of view when comparing the two pianists' performances of Boulez's _Incises_ heard in the videos posted above:
> 
> Pianist Sébastien Vichard served the music through his technique and interpretation; for any number of reasons, Pianist Yegor Shevtsov served himself not the music through his interpretation.
> 
> Those two pianists' performances were heard rather than observed.





PetrB said:


> I hugely prefer the latter, would not even consider the first.


This was my view as well. Or at least that's the preference I tried to express.


----------



## LarryShone (Aug 29, 2014)

stevens said:


> This is EXACTLY my view! :tiphat:


I don't have the luxury of different recordings of a piece. I probably wouldn't be able to distinguish between different conductors to be honest.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Headphone Hermit said:


> You might be better off with better info than this post -
> - Vienna Modern Masters is an American company, I think


You _think?_ My post did not pretend to be definitive or accurate; it was simply a demonstration of the type of logic I use in determining the contents of a CD.

It's no skin off my nose if the potential buyer takes my advice or not, whether he likes the music, or whether critics of my posts bother to read them thoroughly.



Headphone Hermit said:


> - the CD shown doesn't show mainly Polish composers (or a Polish orchestra)


The OP showed 2 CD covers; one of them did. Plus, the
*Polish Radio & TV Symphony Orchestra*

is listed. You must be referring to that other CD.

BTW, someguy, thank you for your "get a life" statement. That's what I get for trying to teach someone to grow their own crops.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

PetrB said:


> The first sounds like a pianist who has yet to be able to rid themselves of a very Romantic approach to music, even when it is not Romantic music... so I consider him "in his own way" and very much "in the way" of hearing this piece more as it should be / is.
> 
> The second is very much personally 'out of the way' and therefore more deeply into the score "as it is." This pianist _while he is still very much giving of himself_ is also _very much at the service of the piece,_ i.e. he is giving us "the piece," and not so much out front "a piece of himself." I hugely prefer the latter, would not even consider the first.
> 
> ADD: I will prefer the latter sort of performer each and every time, including those who are performing Romantic era music.


This attitude of adhering to the score as sacred and definitive, and Platonically ideal, seems to be the majority view when it comes to classical; the score is considered "gospel," as all written scripture is, and the performer is merely an employee. That's why in classical record store sections (remember those?), it's listed by composer, and only rarely by artist. It's that curious separation of composer and performer in the classical genre, with the performer effectively removed from the creative process.

Sometimes this works the other way; a composer's intentions are enhanced by the input the performer provides, not like an automaton, as the second clip above is described to be simply a "reading," nothing more.

One reason that Boulez and Stockhausen are so hard to perform is the technical facility required; the "irrational" rhythms (see Gardner Read: _Music Notation_) look daunting, but in most cases they amount to a "notated legato;" the net effect of these irrational rhythms amounts to a gradual slowing down of tempo within the context.

After this is understood, these tempo fluctuations could be incorporated, and even mistaken for "Romantic" legato.

In other words, maybe the second guy is playing it too stiffly and mechanically. The 2nd guy is more staccato and "classical" sounding, like he's playing Mozart. Admittedly, he does seem to have an extreme degree of control over the dynamics, and generally more controlled approach; but I just love the first guy's playing of that first high-register flourish of notes, and the way it resonates.

What does Boulez want? Who knows.

I know that, being French, and being an artist, he is very interested in "the unconscious" poetry of Mallarme and is influenced by the Surrealists, like Breton, so that is an indicator to me that he is more interested in the "artistic" results of what he does, rather than adhering to an "ideology" of serialism.

Much of his compositional strategy involves the seeking of "unquantifiable" elements like timbral effects, very French, and the way he uses the serial method is not "stiff" at all; in fact he seems to introduce some personal, arbitrary, "illogical" (re: artistic) elements into the way he handles the generation of material from rows or 12-tone matrices.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Well, it can be pretty clear that something has gone wrong, or that intonation is off, or that the performance contains merely the notes without much in the way of interpretation, but as with music of earlier eras, taste plays a big role in which renditions of pieces we end up preferring.
> 
> Very unfair to compare the two, perhaps, but it seems to me that the first of these two has a harder time with those repeated-note hammering gestures that recur throughout the piece (only two minutes or so of each would be enough for a comparison), and the more reverberant acoustic doesn't reveal as much of the polyphony of the individual phrases.


I admit that I only listened to about 40 seconds of each recording. What I immediately noticed was that the first performer appeared to be very heavy-handed right through, while the second performer strongly accented soft and hard passages. I preferred the second performance, but it was difficult not to notice that the second performance was labelled "Ensemble Intercontemporain", so I concede that this might have introduced some prejudice.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I listened to both clips in their entirety, and I like each performer equally. The first clip, of *Yegor Shevtsov,* is more romantic and gestural in his approach; and somewhat slower. I do feel relaxed by his performance, however; he seems to make the piece an organic whole. The piano sounds different, as well; it's softer, less brittle than *Sebastien Vichard's *faster, more tension-filled performance. The piano, as well, is more brittle and metallic sounding. Vichard plays it faster, and his weakness seems to be in the later, slower parts. He doesn't sound like he's "speaking" the piece as Shevtsov seems to do.

We are definitely hearing "the player" more in Shevtsov, but that's not a bad thing. He seems to have taken the piece as his own.


----------

