# Is Elliott Carter A Great Composer?



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

I find almost no beauty, mystery, nobility, spirituality or elegance within his music. It also seems to me that many people in our cultural climate *pretend* to an enthusiasm in his music that they don't actually feel.

He remains, for me, one of those incredibly overhyped composers whose inspiration comes (if at all) only in the tiniest spurts. I think he will just continue to decline in esteem. There are so many composers out there who are better, and even some of them don't last.

I think Carter got by on a good deal of pretension, and not much else. History will put him as a footnote lower on the totempole from Daniel Auber.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Well, that's just your reaction , and you're not alone in feeling that way . But I think you're being 
terribly premature . It would be interesting if we could come back a hundred or so years from now and see
what his place in 20th and early 21st century music is . You might be surprised . 
When Mahler died just over a century ago, the general critical concensus was that while he was a truly
great conductor , his music was doomed to die with him . Many were just as dismissive of Mahler as you are of
Carter . I find Carter's music difficult to grasp , but sense that there is enormous technical skill and ingenuity behind it, and it's music which cannot be dismissed lightly . 
His music is the exact opposite of minimalism ; it's so lacking in repetition as to be very difficult to follow .
Any given work by Carter is in a constant state of flux; there is no sense of returning to the beginning , or recapitulation , no recognizable themes . No sense of theme one, transition to subsidiary them, return to opening theme as in traditional symphonies or concertos . 
The music is very complex rhythmically , with many different patterns going on simultaneously .
I once played a Carter work for a friend, and she remaked that she could not discern any tempo; she could not tell if the music was fast or slow or not. I replied that you're not supposed to !
Like his music or not, Carter has many, many admirers among today's leading composers ,critics and musicologists ,even if the public tends to find his works baffling .


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

superhorn said:


> Like his music or not, Carter has many, many admirers among today's leading composers ,critics and musicologists


Carter's music has almost zero emotional depth in my opinion. They all have that preoccupation - an almost obsession - with process; a preoccupation that results ineluctably in process becoming a thing unto itself.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

Bach also had this "obsession" with process in his fugal forms, especially later in his life with the Art of Fugue. Just because you can't see beauty in it yourself doesn't mean there's none there, it just means you don't like it and that's fine. I mean, don't you think you're generalizing when you say that all the musicologists and leading composers have an obsession with process and that's it? Maybe they truly do see something significant and personal in Carter's music. 

Carter is a legitimate composer and has influenced many composers after him, his legacy will live on in those composers whether or not history remembers him. To say that he won't be remembered by history just because you happen to dislike him is a very bold, subjective statement, and I think it has nothing to do with the artist itself.Maybe give him a few more chances and see if he grows on you; if he doesn't, that's fine too.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

To answer the question posed in the OP: Yes, I believe him to be so. He's super complex...but the way he treats each part and instrument in such an individual way yet the piece ends up completely coherent is brilliant. I especially like his concept of assigning each instrument a different "character" and having the instruments act out that character throughout the piece (eg. String Quartet 2).


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Well I like his music, he does come across as intellectual, but so what? Compared to the likes of Beethoven, Liszt was mega intellectual, much more well read than Beethoven was. Carter, like Liszt, has also had a constant interest in reading, esp. of literature. He believes that his music should be just like the best contemporary literature - eg. complex, fragmented, reflecting what has gone on in the last 100 years.

The work that is my favourite is his_ String Quartet #1_, composed in the Arizona desert in the early 1950's, and reflecting the wide expanses and 'epic' quality of the American landscape. The cello plays a fragmetary theme at the start of the work which goes right through it, reappears at the end played by the violin in a quite song-like finale marked 'Fantasia.' It took me a few listens to hear what he is doing in this work, and I still like it, its a great journey and very stimulating and visual.

I have other works I like by him, and some works I'm still baffled by at this stage. But I think if you don't feel his music in your body, or 'gut,' or bones so to speak, then it may well be not for you. Its the same way I feel with many of these more recent composers, they work on me in mysterious ways.

But one thing you can't accuse him of is doing rehash. Carter, like others eg. Shostakovich, approaches each work as a different and new problem to be solved. Composing is not a sausage factory, like some living composers who I won't name. I've named them enough on this forum. They've been rehashing themselves for like 20 years, and its quite embarassing given their obvious talent and ability judging from their earlier works.

I do genuinely like and even love some of Carter's music. The argument that it won't last, well as some have said above, who knows. I won't be around in 100 years to see if his music will last or not. But all I can say that he is unique, every work of his I have heard is a unique creation - eg. his cycle of 5 string quartets, all are different, there's a lot of variation within his style just in that cycle. He reflects the climate of 'Modernism' in the USA around the early to mid 20th century - he is kind of an 'heir' to Ives - who he knew personally - Cowell, Varese, Villa-Lobos, Schoenberg, Bartok and so on.

In an interview, Carter reminisced about how when he was young, Mahler was not appreciated much (spot on, superhorn!), and the exit door to the concert hall was jokingly referred to as 'this way in case of Brahms.' So then, even Brahms was considered by some hard conservatives to be beyond the pale, not to speak of Liszt or Wagner (devils incarnate!). To understand Carter's radical intellectualism, one must understand where he came from, which was that quite conservative insular climate of America before things started becoming less rigid after 1945. It was the same here, in our music schools, nothing much was taught to students beyond middle era Beethoven. Peter Sculthorpe said this in his autobiography, and he's younger than Carter, he was studying in the 1950's! So things have changed for the better in some ways, I don't like all aspects of 'Modernist' ideology, but I do respect these guys for doing risky things in their own day, doing new, innovative and exciting things.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

violadude said:


> To answer the question posed in the OP: Yes, I believe him to be so. He's super complex...but the way he treats each part and instrument in such an individual way yet the piece ends up completely coherent is brilliant.
> 
> I especially like his concept of assigning each instrument a different "character" and having the instruments act out that character throughout the piece (eg. String Quartet 2).


Folks, now do you see what I'm talking about?! The preoccupation with process and cold analysis continues! :lol:


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Xavier said:


> Folks, now do you see what I'm talking about?! The preoccupation with process and cold analysis continues! :lol:


I didn't realize assigning unique characters to each part was cold analysis.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

Xavier said:


> Folks, now do you see what I'm talking about?! The preoccupation with process and cold analysis continues! :lol:


This is what I think is happening here, and it happens a lot with people who don't react well to new things. When one doesn't really understand a composer's music, as it is a completely new musical experience, one decides to rationalize it as "cold analysis". Take time to look into Carter's music before you make conclusions, and I'm sure the experience will be much more rewarding, even if you come out not liking it but still respecting it. This is not music that is supposed to be got the first time; it's music that requires further listening and further analysis to get something meaningful out of it.






Elliott Carter is a human being, and even he is enchanted by music such as Schubert; he is not a cold-hard intellectual looking to dehumanize classical music.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

SottoVoce said:


> Elliott Carter is a human being, and even he is enchanted by music such as Schubert; he is not a cold-hard intellectual looking to dehumanize classical music.


It's the *TREMOLOS*!!!! Dammit!..


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Xavier said:


> Carter's music has almost zero emotional depth in my opinion. They all have that preoccupation - an almost obsession - with process; a preoccupation that results ineluctably in process becoming a thing unto itself.


Like Mozart and Haydn's almost OCD preoccupation with standardized forms? :3


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

SottoVoce said:


> ...
> Elliott Carter is a human being, and even he is enchanted by music such as Schubert; he is not a cold-hard intellectual looking to dehumanize classical music.


That's very interesting, because the work I was talking about in my post above, Carter's first string quartet, I mentioned the finale was song-like. Well I kind of thought it to be kind of Schubertian in many ways too, but thought it would sound a bit silly saying that. Now I realise that the comparison is a good one, indeed Carter said that before coming to compose his first string quartet, he went back and studied all the great string quartets (old and new), including Schubert's. So there you go, who would have thought?


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Xavier said:


> I find almost no beauty, mystery, nobility, spirituality or elegance within his music. It also seems to me that many people in our cultural climate *pretend* to an enthusiasm in his music that they don't actually feel.
> 
> He remains, for me, one of those incredibly overhyped composers whose inspiration comes (if at all) only in the tiniest spurts. I think he will just continue to decline in esteem. There are so many composers out there who are better, and even some of them don't last.
> 
> I think Carter got by on a good deal of pretension, and not much else. History will put him as a footnote lower on the totempole from Daniel Auber.


The question is also how much Carter you have heard; I doubt it is enough to notice the span and development in his production. His early and late works are the most accessible. The Auber part I take as provocative, of course.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

And then another point to consider is that, if the intellectual stimulation I get from a Carter piece excites me, isn't that as valid a response as the excitement you get from the emotional stimulation from a Tchaikovsky piece?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Xavier said:


> I find almost no beauty, mystery, nobility, spirituality or elegance within his music. It also seems to me that many people in our cultural climate *pretend* to an enthusiasm in his music that they don't actually feel.
> 
> He remains, for me, one of those incredibly overhyped composers whose inspiration comes (if at all) only in the tiniest spurts. I think he will just continue to decline in esteem. There are so many composers out there who are better, and even some of them don't last.
> 
> I think Carter got by on a good deal of pretension, and not much else. History will put him as a footnote lower on the totempole from Daniel Auber.


I can't help but laugh while reading this post. :lol: What do you understand of his music?


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

I like the _Night Fantasies_, the cello sonata and the first string quartet. Actually, _Night Fantasies_ is the most Romantic piece of atonal piano music I know. It's a great example of "dark" impressionism. He says it was influenced by Schumann's _Davidsbündlertänze_ and I'm not surprised. In general I find his music closer to Berg/Schoenberg than to Webern, Babbit, Boulez.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

violadude said:


> And then another point to consider is that, if the intellectual stimulation I get from a Carter piece excites me, isn't that as valid a response as the excitement you get from the emotional stimulation from a Tchaikovsky piece?


:tiphat:

It is a reasonable response for a musician to be "intellectually stimulated" by music, Carter's included. I'm not a musician, and I am *literally* refreshed by some of Carter's music. It's probably not intellectual though.

[that 'literally' is intended to be a provocation.]


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

My personal fav of the limited works I've heard by Carter would be his dazzling Symphony of Three Orchestras, which is just.... well here, listen XD






It reminds me of many of Ives' later orchestral works, as well as Varese's spectacular Ameriques, a few of Zappa's later orchestral pieces, and Schnittke's magnificent Symphony No. 1 (though not quite as varied as that one).
Carter may actually be easier to accept because his music is freely atonal, rather than serialist (not that there's anything wrong with serialism, its just another method, but ignorant people attack it all the time as if the Baroque and Classical masters didn't use very strict forms and processes in their compositions.)


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

There is resemblance in Carter's later string quartets with Berg's. I think I prefer Berg's and even Schoenberg's than Carter's quartets, whose lines sound thinnest and more dry.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I quite like the works by Carter that I have heard. Is he a "great" composer? That would depend upon what and who qualifies as "great".


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

His clarinet concerto is probably one of the most renowned concertos for a woodwind instrument written in the 20th century.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

Xavier said:


> Folks, now do you see what I'm talking about?! The preoccupation with process and cold analysis continues! :lol:


All you're doing is demanding that composers write in a way _you _find congenial, and reprimanding those who choose to take a different approach, rather than asking yourself what you might do differently in order to appreciate their music more.


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2012)

Jeremy Marchant said:


> All you're doing is demanding that composers write in a way _you _find congenial, and reprimanding those who choose to take a different approach, rather than asking yourself what you might do differently in order to appreciate their music more.


Yeah, God forbid composers write what they want to write. Why don't they guess (accurately) what people they don't know and will never meet will want to hear and then write that?

Easier by far, wouldn't one think, to let composers write whatever the hell they want and us listeners can then just deal with it. Easy. And what we like we like; what we don't like we can let be. Others will like that just fine.

As for "great," so what? I listen to Elliott Carter's music. Some of it I enjoy very much indeed. It is enough. Will some great grandchildren's grandchildren, whom I will never meet, enjoy it? I dunno. Why would I care? I'm alive now. I enjoy it now. IT IS ENOUGH.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

I think we scared Xavier off. Poor fella.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Here's a quote I like from the noted music critic Andrew Porter, former music critic of the New Yorker
magazine. I rarely agree with Porter on anything, but he's right on target here.
The reason why he greatly prefers listening to the music of Carter to Philip Glass is that
"I'd rather have my mind challenged than my patience ". 
Speaking of Auber, whose music is rarely performed today , I've been listening to the excellent EMI
recording of his once popular opera "La Muette De Portici" (the mute girl of Portici) with June Anderson, Alfredo Kraus and John Aler. I got it on library interlloan and I'm glad I did . It's a very enjoyable opera , melodious , swift-moving and drammatically effective. 
I'd be glad if Leon Botstein would revive it in concert form or staged .


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

SottoVoce said:


> I think we scared Xavier off. Poor fella.


Well I think all here talked to the topic/issue he raised, Xavier was not attacked. His ideas/opinions where questioned, that's it. Its good to have robust debate and challenging of one's ideas. I think that's partly what a forum is for. But I think he's been given a 'fair go' so to speak.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> His clarinet concerto is probably one of the most renowned concertos for a woodwind instrument written in the 20th century.


I quite like that work. I see it as kind of a little/younger brother to Copland's clarinet concerto. Copland actually said something to the effect that Carter was among the greatest Americans in any creative field of the 20th century. Its interesting, esp. seeing how their music is so different.


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2012)

He certainly has one of the great _minds_ of the 20th/21st century. Now, if one likes the results of his intellect is an entirely different and highly subjective matter. I wouldn't want to listen to his music all the time, but I do get some enjoyment out of it.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Stick to the what you like and understand, and don't bother your head about some of these Big Boys and Girls of the composers of the world.

They are clearly not for you.

"They're singing songs of love, but not for me."
Waaaaah.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Carter's music has depth. Since when is getting all emotional the measure of great music?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

starthrower said:


> Carter's music has depth. Since when is getting all emotional the measure of great music?


I am persuaded that music (non-vocal) has the primary task of 'communicating without language'. That task is _not_ restricted to getting the hearer "all emotional". For instance, some of Debussy's music communicates with me very well... . So does some of Carter's music; well, maybe not _that_ well.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Stick to the what you like and understand, and don't bother your head about some of these Big Boys and Girls of the composers of the world.
> 
> They are clearly not for you.
> 
> ...


All of my dislike for this post.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

I think Carter rocks, personally. Anyone having doubts about him should try giving a few listens to his Double Concerto, it's wild!


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> I think Carter rocks, personally. Anyone having doubts about him should try giving a few listens to his Double Concerto, it's wild!


beautiful  I really like that the harpsichord has had a comeback in the 20th Century, with some great uses by Carter, Crumb, Ligeti, Zappa, and Schnittke. I love that instrument, and I always like to see more instruments besides the uber-popular ones getting great music written for them and performed on them. Personally I'd like to see more love for the electric guitar, accordion, viola, mandolin, saxophones, and marimba, outside of certain styles that they are stereotyped into. You can play rock and jazz on piano and violin, and you can play classical and avant-garde stuff on the electric guitar and accordion.


----------



## JoeBarron (Sep 6, 2012)

My answer to your question is Yes.

My reponse to your comments is No.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Carter On Carter: Elliott Carter (age 101 at time of interview) talks about his life and music. 
He's quite a warm and enjoyable old fellow!
http://www.boosey.com/podcast/Carter-on-Carter-1-Early-Years/13082

PS Anybody familiar with the Carter series on Bridge Records?
http://www.bridgerecords.com/catpage.php?call=9014


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

I tend to recoil from overly dense music (Roger Sessions is another I find myself not having enough patience for), but I recognize that that's my problem, and not necessarily the music's. Many years ago I heard a live performance (Solti/CSO) of his Variations for Orchestra, and though much of it was beyond me, I was surprised to find that at nthe end, I felt like I'd actually been through something. I don't go out of my way to listen to his music, but many people whose opinions I respect think it's the real deal, so I don't dismiss it.


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2012)

A very heartening response, G.


----------



## etkearne (Sep 28, 2012)

I share Carter's birthday you know! I should get my hands on his works as this thread makes him sound AWESOME to my strange tastes.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> My personal fav of the limited works I've heard by Carter would be his dazzling Symphony of Three Orchestras, which is just.... well here, listen XD
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A favorite of mine as well. I picked it up as part of the 6 CD Boulez Edition on Sony. A great way to acquire the music of Varese, Webern, and Berio for a very affordable price.
http://www.amazon.com/Webern-Varese-Pierre-Boulez-Edition/dp/B002MXN29E/ref=pd_sim_m_1


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Discovering Carter*

I had a very circuitous path to Carter. At one time I could only understand his early music. I never could grasp anything he composed after his _Variations_.

Many years ago I read an interesting review about Carter. The author stated that in order to understand Carter one must first become familiar with his chamber works. When a symphony orchestra performs his music they only have limited rehearsal time while a string quartet would have the luxury of spending months working on one of his works. I then remembered Schoenberg's statement, "My music is not modern, it is merely badly played". So I secured a copy of the Julliard performing his first four string quartets. I was hooked. Carter is now my favorite modernist composer.

His music is so complicated that it is difficult to perform. Musicians today have a better feel for his music. I have an early LP of the _Piano Concerto_ with the by Boston Symphony Orchestra, Erich Leinsdorf, Jacob Lateiner on piano. My reaction to this performance was similar to Xavier's reaction to Carter's music in general. To my flawed ears it was alot of noise. Back in 2002 I secured a copy of the recording of the _Piano Concerto_ on Naxos with Mark Wait and the Nashville Symphony. My reaction then was wait a minute, there is music here. Nashville may not be in the same league as Boston, but the Nashville musicians of 2002 understood Carter better than the Boston musicians of 1968.

(Note: In the summer of 2005 my wife and I visited Tanglewood in Western Massachusetts and attended several concerts. At one concert the Boston Symphony performed Elliott Carter's _Adagio tenebroso _and the orchestra nailed it.)


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

New complexity makes Elliott Carter look like a wimp.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Xavier said:


> I find almost no beauty, mystery, nobility, spirituality or elegance within his music.


Most mycologists feel the same way. But are you sure about the "mystery"part?"



Xavier said:


> It also seems to me that many people in our cultural climate pretend to an enthusiasm in his music that they don't actually feel.


Is that why people always feel pressured to get up and dance when his music comes on?



Xavier said:


> He remains, for me, one of those incredibly overhyped composers whose inspiration comes (if at all) only in the tiniest spurts.


That's an odd metaphor, if you ask me.



Xavier said:


> I think he will just continue to decline in esteem.


Like most American composers; and Lady Gaga's true legacy will finally be understood.



Xavier said:


> There are so many composers out there who are better, and even some of them don't last.


You mean like John Philip Sousa? He's got lasting power. Of course, military marching-band music will always be needed in our "cultural climate" of war for profit.



Xavier said:


> I think Carter got by on a good deal of pretension, and not much else.


So he's pretending to be great, and we're pretending to like him? There is a distinct ring of unreality to this.



Xavier said:


> History will put him as a footnote lower on the totempole from Daniel Auber.


Obscure opera composers? Wow, that's impressive; I had to look that up in WIK.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I went to see this:






'twas a stimulating performance.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think that the craftsmanship in Elliott Carter's music was the element that immediately struck me. This was transmitted by the _sheer sound_ of it, so I equate this with a kind of "beauty." So, for me, it succeeds as art. Its impact was immediate and visceral.

Hey COAG, Maderna's opera "Satyricon" is a trip.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I haven't explored Carter too much, but this piece I find to be pretty decent:


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

@tdc, _Shard_ is an awesome guitar work.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Wow!!!!!*



tdc said:


> I haven't explored Carter too much, but this piece I find to be pretty decent.


Following the music for me really enhanced understanding the performance. One really has to know what he is doing in order to create such intricate rhythms. I was able to pick-up many of the themes. What a virtuoso work. Thanks for the great video.


----------



## etkearne (Sep 28, 2012)

I picked up Carter's "Double Concerto For Harpsichord, Etc." this morning. The reason I picked that one up was because I didn't have the money in my bank account to buy a whole album and you could buy that work "movement by movement". But, also, the percussion in the sample sounded intriguing to say the least. 

I can certainly say that my excitement couldn't be higher. I think I have come across (by the help of you all) a composer I will really enjoy for years to come. He really does seem right up my alley: Fun, complex, unpredictable, wild, etc.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

BTW, earlier somebody mentioned Carter's use of "characters" for each instrument. He has said that he got this idea from Charles Ives' String Quartet No. 2, the movements Iiscussions and II: Arguments. Just thought I'd mention it...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

In memoriam Elliott Carter (1908-2012), 103 years old.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

Carter lived a long and productive life. Whether his music will endure and stand the test of time none of us can say. What we can say is what we do or do not like about his music. I don't like everything I have heard by Elliot Carter but I do think some of his pieces are just simply brilliant. I love his first symphony and his violin concerto as well as his string quartets. I hear in Elliot's music some of the distinctive American styling that we find in Ives, Copland and Piston and my personal belief is that he will be considered to be one of the greatest American composer of modern music. I hope he rests in peace. He has left us with a lot to discern and appreciate.

Kevin


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

For my tastes, Carter was the greatest of the 20th Century American composers. The extremely high level of his craft right up into the last few years of his life astonishes me.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

*Carter* occupies the grey area between serialism and tonality, if looked at in terms of advanced serial thought, which is struggling to reconcile certain aspects of serialism with tonality. Most listeners here who are vehemently anti-serial are probably unaware of this aspect of serialism, or Carter.

Carter worked a lot with what are called "all-interval tetrachords" and "all-triad hexachords," which are certain sets (out of all the possible sets) which exhibit certain symmetries, such as producing the same set of _pitch letter-names_ under inversion. As I have said in my past posts and blogs, _pitch names_ are tied to _pitch identity,_ a tonal concept, rather than being quantities, as in interval distance.

Thus, using these special-case sets, the composer is able to control the vertical, as well as horizontal consequences of several 'stacked' rows, thus producing controlled harmonic effects, yet never straying from serial principles.

*Milton Babbitt* is responsible for generating interest in these all-interval sets, although his music (excepting his broadway-style songs) does not reflect an interest in "reconciling" 12-tone ideas with tonality. *George Perle,* whose music is largely unknown, espouses these same concepts in his book _"Twelve-Tone Tonality."_


----------

