# Music and its times



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Let me ask -- a modest question. Some music suits its times and passes with those times. Other music seems to transcend its times and remains with us even though values and social preferences change.

Is there something we can define that makes that difference?


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

The second kind is better 


I can't say I listen to much music that hasn't aged well, so it's hard to say for me. Were there pieces or styles you were thinking of in particular?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

A critic once said that a single movement of Anton Rubinstein's "Dramatic" Symphony contained more genius than all of Brahms's symphonies combined. I think modern audiences just have a hard time taking so much "genius" in all at once (let alone four movements and 70+ minutes of it!), which has led to this work's neglect.

Judge for yourself, from one of the two recordings on the market.





...so dull...


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I have spent a lot of time thinking about this  since I try to avoid buying the first kind and only buy the second kind.

To be polite, I have often had to concede that it is nothing more than personal taste, as, invariably, there are many who will not like the pieces I consider timeless. Still, I do actually believe that there is something more to it... but it will always be seen as snobbery by most. In the end, only time will truly tell.

At the risk of having you all laugh behind my back, and it is so difficult to be objective with a piece presented for scrutiny in a thread such as this one, I have to conclude that this is not outrightly bad, but it is overworked, repetitive and cliché. It's got its moments.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Mahlerian said:


> A critic once said that a single movement of Anton Rubinstein's "Dramatic" Symphony contained more genius than all of Brahms's symphonies combined. I think modern audiences just have a hard time taking so much "genius" in all at once (let alone four movements and 70+ minutes of it!), which has led to this work's neglect.
> 
> Judge for yourself, from one of the two recordings on the market.
> 
> ...so dull...


Made me chuckle. I actually enjoy Rubinstein, but you've managed to find just about the worst example. It sounds like the zealous effort of a tyro. His piano concertos are better. But then since he was trying so hard to be Beethoven even to the point of looking like him, he becomes the classical equivalent of a tribute band (Retro Tull comes to mind).

In answer to KenOc's question, I think for me all music is timeless or at least it has become more timeless as I get longer in the tooth. There is only music that falls on a spectrum somewhere between bad to life changing, and this has little to do with whether I enjoy it. I think I have always had a knack for putting myself in the context of the music's time, so the idea of timelessness is nearly meaningless to me.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Something might be in a hip style for its time but only later do some people realise that it wasn't that good.


----------



## Perotin (May 29, 2012)

As I was reading Wikipedia article on Myaskovsky, I came across this interesting passage: "Nevertheless, in the 1920s and 1930s Myaskovsky's symphonies were quite frequently played in Western Europe and the USA. In 1935, a survey made by CBS of its radio audience asking the question 'Who, in your opinion, of contemporary composers will remain among the world's great in 100 years?' placed Myaskovsky in the top ten along with Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich, Richard Strauss, Stravinsky, Sibelius, Ravel, de Falla and Fritz Kreisler." 

OK, they were wrong about Kreisler and partially about Myaskovsky (who is a bit underestimated IMHO), but regarding the others their prediction was amazingly accurate. Is today's taste simillar to the one in the 20s and 30s? Or did they just simply know, what was good music? Ultimately, it's probably the quality, that makes the difference, for some composers have retained modern feel up to this day, like Beethoven or Debussy, and others haven't, like Bach and Mozart, yet they are still equally esteemed.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

It wasn't that long ago when Mahler was snubbed. Who_ isn't _playing Mahler these days?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> Is there something we can define that makes that difference?


The ability of artist to embrace timeless qualitites while working in the temporarily-reigning style. That's the difference between, for example, Mozart's _Nozze di Figaro_ and countless classical operas that followed similiar trends. Mozart used the standard motives of XVIIIth century opera buffa as frame to create a picture that would work inside the convention and transcend it at the same time. Some composers have put their efforts to embellish the frame only. That is why _Il matrimonio segreto_ got old and _Figaro_ did not. Same thing happens in every genre, from chamber music to symphony.


----------



## Copperears (Nov 10, 2013)

I'm often amazed at how much more timeless music I considered time-constrained or "current" when I first heard it has turned out to be.

Yes, people in the 25th century will still be listening to the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band.


----------



## Guest (Dec 11, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Let me ask -- a modest question. Some music suits its times and passes with those times. Other music seems to transcend its times and remains with us even though values and social preferences change.
> 
> Is there something we can define that makes that difference?


As so often happens, everywhere, the question takes something for granted that cannot be taken for granted, or assumes something to be true that is not something that can be so assumed.

In this case, the set up is questionable. Is there indeed music that suits its time and passes with those times? Is it possible that there is music that has passed with those times that could be seen as transcending them if it were played again? (Something very like that happened with a certain Leipzig composer.) And is there a relationship between "transcend its times" and "remains with us"? At first blush, those might seem to be simply synonyms. But I'm not so sure.

In any event, one thing is for sure, if you can listen to it--that is, if you can get access it--then it has either lasted or it has been rediscovered. Music that has genuinely not lasted is genuinely not accessible. It is literally unknown. (Though probably you can guess what it may have been like by listening to the music that has lasted.)

So we've really only got one category, music that has lasted. So the question is really asking if there's a difference between something that's unknown and something that's known. Well, yes. One of them is known and one of them is unknown. About the unknown, one can say very little, even about why it has passed into oblivion. There's a naive belief that "the test of time" will inevitably winnow out the chaff, leaving only lovely kernels of wheat for our delectation. However, there are dozens, hundreds, thousands of very dull and forgettable pieces from the past that continue to be played and that continue to be recorded. You've probably heard some yourself. So if a dull and forgettable piece can survive this "test of time" thing, then one can easily imagine a fabulous piece that has not.

Besides, maybe there are dozens, hundreds, thousands of people who do not find the pieces I have called dull and forgettable to be either dull or forgettable. Which brings us, and this time the inevitability is real, to the reality of the individual listener. (Music cannot be as easily divided into "wheat" and "chaff" as grains can.)

All music is either of its time or is a pastiche of earlier times. Most of the music of the earlier times is of its time. That we, in 2013, can still listen to it and enjoy it says something about us for sure (something that the people of earlier times--if earlier means pre-Beethoven--might have found alien or puzzling). That it says something about the music itself is not so sure. Pastiche, while it was practiced in the 19th century, never really got a foothold until the twentieth century, where it became a cottage industry and very popular among listeners who prefer genuine 19th century music.

Why one piece stays popular for centuries--and note that centuries have to have passed for one to be able to say this--and another doesn't is a mystery. Repetition leads to familiarity, of course, and so anything that's repeated often enough will become familiar. And the familiar has the quality of seeming to be inevitable.

Which is one reason why queries like "who is the 21st century Beethoven?" or "why isn't Xenakis as popular as Mozart?" are so silly. They ignore repetition and familiarity.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

I think older music that is popular today should be good music. Naturally, because it has been tested over time and something is timeless in it which appeals in general to the human ears.

Another good question could be: What is that music which listened to again and again over a long life, doesn't bore the listener, doesn't lose significance, and retains the ability to enthrall and entertain long after the first listen? I think music of this type is much rarer.


----------



## Animato (Dec 5, 2013)

Classical Music is called „Classical“ because it is timeless. Nevertheless there is a selection among pieces of classical music, or composers. As Aramis already pointed out: there have been hundreds of opera composers in the 19th and 18th century – but only the operas of a couple of them are still popular in our times (Verdi, Puccini, Donizetti, Rossini, Leoncavallo etc.) I agree that it is a question of quality and taste.

But there are exceptions: Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy rediscovered Bach’s Matthaeus-Passion and made it popular. Without him, this magnificent work would be hardly known today.

Besides that I would like to add something more: We live in modern times, where all kind of music is available to everybody. There is no real “classical music” today – or paradoxically stated: every kind of music is “classical” today: Elvis Presley, The Beatles, Chinese Opera, Michael Jackson as well as Mozart and Beethoven. Sorry to those, who do not like Mozart quoted together with popular musicians – for the music market it is the same! 

Best regards Animato


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

Music/Literature/Painting that expresses something fundamental about the human condition ie universal, is that not one definition of 'great art', that it exists therefore irrespective of the historically specific circumstances in which it was created-whilst art that is often forgotten or may have fallen into neglect has not 'escaped' the circumstances in which it was created.......yes I accept that I may well be open to assault, my argument may well be flawed but why do people still have such regard for Shakespeare, Zola, Raphael or indeed Beethoven?


----------



## Guest (Dec 11, 2013)

"Timeless" is not a category.

"Timeless" is not a quality of any thing.

The things that have truly not lasted are truly not able to be talked about. They are unknown. They could be as great as Bach's St. Matthew Passion. We simply do not know.

Timelessness is an illusion. It is the name we have given to the things that have survived, for whatever reason.

Bach's _St. Matthew Passion_ has, after being rescued, survived. So has his "Sheep May Safely Graze."

Mozart's 41st symphony has survived. So has his "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik."

Beethoven's symphony nr. 9 has survived. So has his "Wellington's Victory."

All sorts of things have survived of all levels of quality. (If you're into that kind of thing.) Survival is no guarantee of anything.

"Universal" is also not a category. Everything that everyone thinks is a result of culture and time and prejudice, including what I just said.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

Are you trying to imply that nothingness is the only truth?


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

I remember when we played Anderson's Typewriter for a young audience. A fun piece for children, right?

It was meaningless. They had no idea what a typewriter was, let alone what it sounded like.


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Let me ask -- a modest question. Some music suits its times and passes with those times. Other music seems to transcend its times and remains with us even though values and social preferences change.
> 
> Is there something we can define that makes that difference?


I certainly can't, particularly not regarding my own contemporaries.

But I would like to draw the question even further: Are artists who "pass the test of time" rightfully regarded as "superior"? Maybe some others had the most brilliant answers to the questions of their own time, and it is only us who are no longer able to perceive those _questions_?


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Ebab said:


> I certainly can't, particularly not regarding my own contemporaries.
> 
> But I would like to draw the question even further: Are artists who "pass the test of time" rightfully regarded as "superior"? Maybe some others had the most brilliant answers to the questions of their own time, and it is only us who are no longer able to perceive those _questions_?


In those cases, one hopes one will find those questions and explain how the given artists answer them. If the case is persuasive enough, that artist will be resurrected and become timeless (for awhile, at least).

Such things are difficult, of course--hardly "a modest question"! :lol:


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

Pop music certainly dates itself. The "shelf life" of most popular music is somewhere between six months to a year, apparently.

By the way, when are they going to start making disposable CDs? (On the other hand, most of the music I listen to is more than a hundred years old, and it is just as relevant and new as it was when first performed.)


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I wouldn't call the Q "modest," but it is humbling that there is really no pat answer.

I'd fall back on the response a colleague gave about "how can you tell if it is classcial? -- that answer,

Listen to a lot of it, after a while, it will become very clear that a piece is classical, where pieces a,b,c, all somewhat similar, are not, but instead 'Film / Video Game Music" or "broadway show music," etc.

Listen, then, to a lot of it, including those works from an era which sound more like sound-snapshots of the fashion of the era but are not really speaking to us as other works from that same era still do. (Sorry, but this can be the matter of fact about some more recently 'resurrected interest' repertoire, I dare to pluck Medtner out of thin air as an example -- where some resurrected rep seems to survive, ala Bach and Mahler.)

If you really cannot discern, after a lot of listening over a long period of time, the overall difference of import between Salieri and Mozart, then I'd suggest you shouldn't trouble yourself with the question anyway or any more


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> If you really cannot discern, after a lot of listening over a long period of time, the overall difference of import between Salieri and Mozart, then I'd suggest you shouldn't trouble yourself with the question anyway or any more


Or else become a Salieri scholar! :lol:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> A critic once said that a single movement of Anton Rubinstein's "Dramatic" Symphony contained more genius than all of Brahms's symphonies combined. I think modern audiences just have a hard time taking so much "genius" in all at once (let alone four movements and 70+ minutes of it!), which has led to this work's neglect.
> 
> Judge for yourself, from one of the two recordings on the market.
> 
> ...


I'm sure Rubinstein was completely in earnest there, but... 
...well, does anyone else find this seriously banal to the point of inadvertently comedic?

A perfect example, though, of music making a generic sound of its era, while to me, anyway, sounding also instantly passé and severely 'dated' -- clearly announcing its decrepit old age just by walking in the door -- where a work by another composer from the same era and in a similar vein is still considered vital, performed, recorded and played _and listened to as it still speaks directly to us_ right now.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Blancrocher said:


> Or else become a Salieri scholar! :lol:


_*Somebody * has to do it _


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Couac Addict said:


> I remember when we played Anderson's Typewriter for a young audience. A fun piece for children, right?
> 
> It was meaningless. They had no idea what a typewriter was, let alone what it sounded like.


Now that is a mighty fine example of temporal and dated. Time to update the typewriter part of that piece to a part for the audible beeps of an iPhone's texting keyboard.

The good news? All those triangle parts in classical music through to the later 20th century and present will no longer have the listener at home wondering if their phone rang


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

Well, tonight, I am inclined to say that Debussy's Clair de Lune is timeless. Or maybe it defines modern music in a unique way.


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

Celloman said:


> Pop music certainly dates itself. The "shelf life" of most popular music is somewhere between six months to a year, apparently.


Burt Bacharach was popular, was largely forgotten (I pride myself that I discovered him for myself during that phase), was re-discovered, and is now regarded as a classic.

I'm going to contradict myself: Burt Bacharach is still a contemporary of all of us (bless him), and I would predict that some of his music is here to stay.

Same goes for Sondheim (and I'm even later at _that_ party).


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ebab said:


> Burt Bacharach was popular, was largely forgotten (I pride myself that I discovered him for myself during that phase), was re-discovered, and is now regarded as a classic.
> 
> I'm going to contradict myself: Burt Bacharach is still a contemporary of all of us (bless him), and I would predict that some of his music is here to stay.
> 
> Same goes for Sondheim (and I'm even later at _that_ party).


Just to be boring and hammer it all home yet again, Bacharach studied under Darius Milhaud, Henry Cowell, and Bohuslav Martinů. (Bacharach cites Milhaud as the most helpful / influential.)

Sondheim drank from the well source, Oscar Hammerstein II and, ready for it? later studied under Milton Babbitt (Sondheim says Babbitt served him very well

These kinds of lists go on...
Piazolla -- Ginastera and Nadia Boulanger
Country singer Ronee Blakley -- Mills College, Stanford University, graduate work at Juilliard

All thought of, if not advertised, as having 'little or no training.' LOL.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Normally music that focuses more on universal truths of being human are what gets dubbed "timeless".... The music that has a sole focus on fashion, fads, and trends will always date quickly. That's why artists like Beethoven and Mozart still feel fresh while Lady Gaga's music already feels like it's been on the planet for too long. 

Of course you can use contemporary ideas and structure to communicate the message, but it should be used as a tool... and not as an end.


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

PetrB said:


> All thought of, if not advertised, as having 'little or no training.' LOL.


Personally, I have learned of that training (after I've fallen in love with the music). Both Bacharach and Sondheim were never in the least hesitant of publicly giving gratitude to their teachers, were they?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

PetrB said:


> I'm sure Rubinstein was completely in earnest there, but...
> ...well, does anyone else find this seriously banal to the point of inadvertently comedic?


Yes. Pointless extra text.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> Normally music that focuses more on universal truths of being human are what gets dubbed "timeless".... The music that has a sole focus on fashion, fads, and trends will always date quickly. That's why artists like Beethoven and Mozart still feel fresh while Lady Gaga's music already feels like it's been on the planet for too long.
> 
> Of course you can use contemporary ideas and structure to communicate the message, but it should be used as a tool... and not as an end.


_*"It don't mean a thing, if it ain't got that swing
doo-ah, doo-ah, doo-ah, doo-ah, doo-ah, doo-ah, doo-ah, doo-ah, doo-ah"*_


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Yes. Pointless extra text.


:lol:...:lol:...:lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Let me ask -- a modest question. Some music suits its times and passes with those times. Other music seems to transcend its times and remains with us even though values and social preferences change.
> 
> Is there something we can define that makes that difference?


(smiling) I see you're interested in history.


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

PetrB said:


> "It don't mean a thing, if it ain't got that swing/doo-ah, doo-ah, doo-ah, doo-ah, doo-ah, doo-ah, doo-ah, doo-ah, doo-ah"


I'm not sure of many things, but I'm sure that these lines are going to be remembered on this earth longer than I will be.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

That Rauschenberg assemblage, the one with a stuffed goat with a tire around it: that sticks in my mind forever. I'm not sure what that's got to do with "the times." 
The Mona Lisa is perhaps the same; an enigma, which somehow seems to penetrate through all temporal contexts. 
The Ninth: it's there for all time, transcending everything around it.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Animato said:


> Classical Music is called „Classical" because it is timeless.


That is _just wrong_

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_period_%28music%29


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

"Classical" is slang, man.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> "Classical" is slang, man.


ayep, for all the music which sings "Doo-*** diddy" in another dialect than 'pop.'


----------



## Animato (Dec 5, 2013)

Hi PetrB,

why is my statement just wrong ? The first sentence of Wikipedia's explanation of "Classical" is:
/quote/ A classic is an outstanding example of a particular style, something of lasting worth or with a timeless quality./unquote/

"Classical music" is something different to "music of the classic period".
Actually, I think the term "classical music" does not make sense in our times. But it is used to distinguish opera music, orchestral music etc from popular music. 

have a nice day ! 
Animato


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

Animato said:


> why is my statement just wrong ? The first sentence of Wikipedia's explanation of "Classical" is:
> /quote/ A classic is an outstanding example of a particular style, something of lasting worth or with a timeless quality./unquote/


I believe you've been looking at the entry for "classic", not "classical".


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Animato said:


> Hi PetrB,
> 
> why is my statement just wrong ? The first sentence of Wikipedia's explanation of "Classical" is:
> /quote/ A classic is an outstanding example of a particular style, something of lasting worth or with a timeless quality./unquote/


...and as such, a_ classical_ car collector may be disappointed with his purchase on the delivery day.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I've always said here that everything is of its time. Some things last because they are simply very good or because they were very famous and have had enough champions through the years. The idea that anything is timeless is just the usual hyperbole.


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

starry said:


> I've always said here that everything is of its time. Some things last because they are simply very good or because they were very famous and have had enough champions through the years. The idea that anything is timeless is just the usual hyperbole.


so that's that!......end of story!.........there you go!.....why all the debate?......we just need someone to sort these things out!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ebab said:


> Personally, I have learned of that training (after I've fallen in love with the music). Both Bacharach and Sondheim were never in the least hesitant of publicly giving gratitude to their teachers, were they?


Nope... whatever they got, they got good and were quite open about it. It is more in the purely 'pop' genre where those who might have no qualms about their training are actually told by their agents to not mention it! The glamor of their having 'done it their way' or falsely giving the idea that 'anyone can do it' being part of that dynamic... and even that may be changing to more openness about the disciplined training.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Couac Addict said:


> ...and as such, a_ classical_ car collector may be disappointed with his purchase on the delivery day.


LOL. I remember this, _the automobile was called *The Aeolian!*_ Unfortunately, it failed, too much of the cosmetics of the body design looked near exactly like _*The Hum D.*_


----------



## Guest (Dec 12, 2013)

jim prideaux said:


> so that's that!......end of story!.........there you go!.....why all the debate?......we just need someone to sort these things out!


What? I said almost the same thing earlier, and you never jumped down my throat for it!

Why, why jim? Are we not enemies any more?

I miss my enemy.



Anyway, Starry is, as usual, exactly right.

Besides, how much time are we actually talking about? Beethoven's ninth. About a decade shy of three hundred years, now. That may seem like a long time to someone whose clock is set at around 70 or 80 years. But it's not, really. Hardly timeless.

It's a nice piece. It gets played a lot. So much so that hardly anyone listens to it any more. (I was in the lobby a couple of years ago in Eugene and heard people effusing about maestro Rilling's torpid and flaccid shuffle through this magnificent symphony. It was easily the worst performance I'd ever heard of this piece. Almost unrecognizable. But people reported as loving it. Many people. Eyes glowing.

Well, whatever they heard or imagined they heard, it was not a good performance of that piece. I would have thought that anyone who really loves this piece would have been incensed not over-joyed. I do and I was incensed.)

But timeless? Hardly. Not even three centuries have passed since its premiere.

Here, one more time, is Robert Frost on "the test of time."

"It is absurd to think that the only way to tell if a poem is lasting is to wait and see if it lasts. The right reader of a good poem can tell the moment it strikes him that he has taken an immortal wound, that he will never get over it. That is to say, permanence in poetry as in love is perceived instantly. It has not to wait the test of time. The proof of a poem is not that we have never forgotten it, but that we knew at sight that we never could forget it. There was a barb to it and a toxin that we owned to at once."

If I were king, my first proclamation would be for everyone to memorize this quote.:trp:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

some guy said:


> Robert Frost on "the test of time."
> 
> "It is absurd to think that the only way to tell if a poem is lasting is to wait and see if it lasts. The right reader of a good poem can tell the moment it strikes him that he has taken an immortal wound, that he will never get over it. That is to say, permanence in poetry as in love is perceived instantly. It has not to wait the test of time. The proof of a poem is not that we have never forgotten it, but that *we knew at sight that we never could forget it. There was a barb to it and a toxin that we owned to at once."*


I've got to thank you for that quote, and Mr. Frost for the taking all the turgid tumors of syrupy and runny sentiment, the excrementitious out of the formula.

His statement is _great._

Thanks again.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

There is something to be said for something that strikes you relatively quickly (assuming you know the style at least reasonably) compared to something that takes much longer to get much enjoyment out of. And with music it's about the performers as well. It's easier for a more creative piece to offer more for the performers to impress with. Lesser or less appealing works need the extra boost of great sound, clever expression and phrasing. So those works are likely to impress in fewer performances/recordings.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Animato said:


> Hi PetrB,
> 
> why is my statement just wrong? The first sentence of Wikipedia's explanation of "Classical" is:
> /quote/ A classic is an outstanding example of a particular style, something of lasting worth or with a timeless quality./unquote/
> ...


*"clas·si·cal mu·sic
noun
noun: classical music

1. serious or conventional music following long-established principles rather than a folk, jazz, or popular tradition.

2. (more specifically) music written in the European tradition during a period lasting approximately from 1750 to 1830, when forms such as the symphony, concerto, and sonata were standardized."*

Classical with an upper case 'C' is used for the more specific music era, 1750 to 1830
classical with a lower case 'c' is used for the general meaning of non popular genre western art music.

This is similar to the two usages of the word Catholic / catholic -- (and you can get the same initial muddle of confusion when it is placed at the beginning of a sentence, the rules being that first word must be upper case, no matter what


----------

