[[email protected]]

....influences how music is produced:

http://personal.crocodoc.com/downloa...3-2286b6dc4f67

[William Sommerwerck]

wrote in message ...

...influences how music is produced:

http://personal.crocodoc.com/downloa...3-2286b6dc4f67

But this has always been broadly true. It was only in the late '40s (when tape
recording became commonplace), and in the '50s and '60s (when genuinely
high-fidelity playback equipment began to appear), that recording engineers
started to get serious about making recordings that actually sounded like the
musical source.

This lasted until multi-track recording arrived, at which point the sound of
the orchestra was dissected and reassembled to produce an "idealized" sound
that lacked a strong relationship to to the original.

Of course, the phonograph record itself had limited dynamic range, and the
mastering engineer would often pull up the quieter passages. (Bud Fried told
me on several occasions that the original masterings of the Solti "Ring" had a
dynamic range of barely 20dB.) If you've never heard a dbx II encoded LP,
you're in for a surprise.

The Compact Disk ought to have brought these musical "perversions" to an end,
but it didn't. The CD was a mass-market replacement for the LP and Compact
Cassette, so these atrocities continued. It wasn't until the SACD and BD-Audio
disk arrived that recording engineers started taking absolute fidelity
seriously * -- because they knew these recordings would be played on very good
equipment.

"A worrying trend: there is no place for neutrality and fidelity in today's
music business. Discuss."

No place? There is for classical music. I never thought I'd live to hear such
lifelike commercial recordings. The dynamic range is sometimes so wide that,
even if the level is up where the loudest passages blast you out of the room,
the quietest passages can be covered by nearby traffic.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter. On the one hand, most of this music doesn't
deserve "high-fidelity" recording. On the other hand, the recording engineers
are breeding a generation of listeners who have no idea what "fidelity" is
about. As long as classical listeners continue to get great sound, I couldn't
care less.

PS: Most SACDs have good-to-outstanding sound. But if you want to hear really
lifelike recordings, get some Linn recordings. Yes, from The Company That
Hates Digital. (I also like AliaVox.)

* No offense, Herr und Frau Fine.

[[email protected]]

Link expires after a while, go he http://personal.crocodoc.com/Uz7pslS?embedded=true

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
But this has always been broadly true. It was only in the late '40s
(when tape recording became commonplace), and in the '50s and '60s
(when genuinely high-fidelity playback equipment began to appear), that
recording engineers started to get serious about making recordings that
actually sounded like the musical source.

That's rather a broad statement. There are many fine recordings (within
the limits of the then current equipment) from perhaps the '30s onwards.
Across all types of music.

--
*Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/29/2014 8:01 PM, wrote:
...influences how music is produced:

And so now we have books such as "Mastering for iTunes."


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[William Sommerwerck]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:

But this has always been broadly true. It was only in the late '40s
(when tape recording became commonplace), and in the '50s and '60s
(when genuinely high-fidelity playback equipment began to appear), that
recording engineers started to get serious about making recordings that
actually sounded like the musical source.

That's rather a broad statement. There are many fine recordings (within
the limits of the then current equipment) from perhaps the '30s onwards.
Across all types of music.

"within the limits" is, I think, the qualifier. It was only in the late '40s
and early '50s that //true// high fidelity, without serious qualifications,
became possible.

Of course, the term "high fidelity" dates from the early '30s.

[[email protected]]

William Sommerwerck wrote: "Of course, the term "high fidelity" dates from the early '30s. "

Of course, the term "high fidelity", even in an early '30s context, would not accurately describe most new recordings from this century.

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "And so now we have books such as "Mastering for iTunes."

Ahh yes, boutique - or, a la carte - mastering!

smh

A wonder we don't have 7 different masters for all the different outlets and playback formats.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/30/2014 9:52 PM, wrote:

Ahh yes, boutique - or, a la carte - mastering!

It's quite common for a pop song to be mixed (and mastered) in several
different versions depending on where it's going. iTunes is just another
way of hearing a song, and it's not necessarily the same audience as a
radio or a TV audience, or a live audience in a dance club. Each has its
own "boutique" version.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, August 30, 2014 10:48:52 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 8/30/2014 9:52 PM, .com wrote:



Ahh yes, boutique - or, a la carte - mastering!



It's quite common for a pop song to be mixed (and mastered) in several

different versions depending on where it's going. iTunes is just another

way of hearing a song, and it's not necessarily the same audience as a

radio or a TV audience, or a live audience in a dance club. Each has its

own "boutique" version.



--

For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

Ridiculous isn't it?

Back in the day mastering meant a track didn't throw the stylus on a record, and that the tracks were all *close enough* in volume that reaching for the knob wasn't necessary.

We didn't cater to fans listening on this or that device. It was up to the listener and their budget to afford a decent enough stereo to listen on. It wasn't like, "Oh, all the teeny boppers listen to music on http://cdn.radiolive.co.nz/radiolive....jpg?width=800 - have the studio chop off all the bottom and top, and compress the rest!

You chose to listen on that thing, you got what you paid for.

[PStamler]

On Saturday, August 30, 2014 9:17:45 PM UTC-6, wrote:

Back in the day mastering meant a track didn't throw the stylus on a record, and that the tracks were all *close enough* in volume that reaching for the knob wasn't necessary.



We didn't cater to fans listening on this or that device. It was up to the listener and their budget to afford a decent enough stereo to listen on. It wasn't like, "Oh, all the teeny boppers listen to music on http://cdn.radiolive.co.nz/radiolive....jpg?width=800 - have the studio chop off all the bottom and top, and compress the rest!



You chose to listen on that thing, you got what you paid for.

Not so; there are multiple accounts of how Berry Gordy, president of Motown Records, insisted that their singles be mastered to sound best on the cheap little portable phonographs owned by many of their customers. Indeed, he'd audition test pressings on one.

Peace,
Paul

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, August 31, 2014 12:03:36 AM UTC-4, PStamler wrote:
On Saturday, August 30, 2014 9:17:45 PM UTC-6, wrote:



Back in the day mastering meant a track didn't throw the stylus on a record, and that the tracks were all *close enough* in volume that reaching for the knob wasn't necessary.







We didn't cater to fans listening on this or that device. It was up to the listener and their budget to afford a decent enough stereo to listen on. It wasn't like, "Oh, all the teeny boppers listen to music on http://cdn.radiolive.co.nz/radiolive....jpg?width=800 - have the studio chop off all the bottom and top, and compress the rest!







You chose to listen on that thing, you got what you paid for.



Not so; there are multiple accounts of how Berry Gordy, president of Motown Records, insisted that their singles be mastered to sound best on the cheap little portable phonographs owned by many of their customers. Indeed, he'd audition test pressings on one.



Peace,

Paul
_________________

Even if it was going on back then(not as rampant as is now), it doesn't meant it was right to do.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/31/2014 12:10 AM, wrote:
Not so; there are multiple accounts of how Berry Gordy, president of Motown Records, insisted that their singles be mastered to sound best on the cheap little portable phonographs owned by many of their customers. Indeed, he'd audition test pressings on one.
Paul

Even if it was going on back then(not as rampant as is now), it doesn't meant it was right to do.

When you own the record company, what sells the most records is right.
Often the version sent to radio stations was shortened to fit the
broadcast format, or was edited to avoid an offensive word, or dub in a
verse in Spanish for the border stations. All in the interest of selling
more records.

45 rpm records were always mastered for juke box play.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers:

Shortening, editing swears, or language are all highly acceptable compared to f___ing with the dynamics.

[cjt]

On 08/31/2014 04:44 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 8/31/2014 12:10 AM, wrote:
Not so; there are multiple accounts of how Berry Gordy, president of
Motown Records, insisted that their singles be mastered to sound best
on the cheap little portable phonographs owned by many of their
customers. Indeed, he'd audition test pressings on one.
Paul

Even if it was going on back then(not as rampant as is now), it
doesn't meant it was right to do.

When you own the record company, what sells the most records is right.
Often the version sent to radio stations was shortened to fit the
broadcast format, or was edited to avoid an offensive word, or dub in a
verse in Spanish for the border stations. All in the interest of selling
more records.

45 rpm records were always mastered for juke box play.


I seem to recall stories of the Rolling Stones listening to their stuff
on car radios before approving.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/31/2014 11:49 AM, cjt wrote:

I seem to recall stories of the Rolling Stones listening to their stuff
on car radios before approving.

Back when there were real studios, many of them had a low power FM
transmitter so the musicians could listen to their mixes on their own
car radios in the parking lot

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Back when there were real studios, many of them had a low power FM
transmitter so the musicians could listen to their mixes on their own
car radios inFFFFWWHHHOOO-SHHHHHHHHHH! Glug-glug-glug... (toilet bowl flushing)


Ooohh Keee, enough justifying of present practices via past precedent. The facts remain - in general, recorded music, irrespective of genre, has become less dynamic over the past 30 years than it has ever been since Edison's first wax recording.

And a significant deal of that has a lot to do with the Tic-Tac-sized(I'm being generous here!) amps inside smart phones, tablets, etc, not to mention factory earbuds with the timbral characteristics of a mean teacher's fingernails on a blackboard.

[[email protected]]

Back when there were real studios, many of them had a low power FM
transmitter so the musicians could listen to their mixes on their own
car radios inFFFFWWHHHOOO-SHHHHHHHHHH! Glug-glug-glug... (toilet bowl flushing)


Ooohh Keee, enough justifying of present practices via past precedent. The facts remain - in general, recorded music, irrespective of genre, has become less dynamic over the past 30 years than it has ever been since Edison's first wax recording.

And a significant deal of that has a lot to do with the Tic-Tac-sized(I'm being generous here!) amps inside smart phones, tablets, etc, not to mention factory earbuds with the timbral characteristics of a mean teacher's fingernails on a blackboard.

[[email protected]]

Back when there were real studios, many of them had a low power FM
transmitter so the musicians could listen to their mixes on their own
car radios inFFFFWWHHHOOO-SHHHHHHHHHH! Glug-glug-glug... (toilet bowl flushing)


Ooohh Keee, enough justifying of present practices via past precedent. The facts remain - in general, recorded music, irrespective of genre, has become less dynamic over the past 30 years than it has ever been since Edison's first wax recording.

And a significant deal of that has a lot to do with the Tic-Tac-sized(I'm being generous here!) amps inside smart phones, tablets, etc, not to mention factory earbuds with the timbral characteristics of a mean teacher's fingernails on a blackboard.

[[email protected]]

Back when there were real studios, many of them had a low power FM
transmitter so the musicians could listen to their mixes on their own
car radios inFFFFWWHHHOOO-SHHHHHHHHHH! Glug-glug-glug... (toilet bowl flushing)


Ooohh Keee, enough justifying of present practices via past precedent. The facts remain - in general, recorded music, irrespective of genre, has become less dynamic over the past 30 years than it has ever been since Edison's first wax recording.

And a significant deal of that has a lot to do with the Tic-Tac-sized(I'm being generous here!) amps inside smart phones, tablets, etc, not to mention factory earbuds with the timbral characteristics of a mean teacher's fingernails on a blackboard.

[[email protected]]

Back when there were real studios, many of them had a low power FM
transmitter so the musicians could listen to their mixes on their own
car radios inFFFFWWHHHOOO-SHHHHHHHHHH! Glug-glug-glug... (toilet bowl flushing)


Ooohh Keee, enough justifying of present practices via past precedent. The facts remain - in general, recorded music, irrespective of genre, has become less dynamic over the past 30 years than it has ever been since Edison's first wax recording.

And a significant deal of that has a lot to do with the Tic-Tac-sized(I'm being generous here!) amps inside smart phones, tablets, etc, not to mention factory earbuds with the timbral characteristics of a mean teacher's fingernails on a blackboard.

[William Sommerwerck]

wrote in message ...

We didn't cater to fans listening on this or that device. It was
up to the listener and their budget to afford a decent enough
stereo to listen on.

Ironically, even "cheap" audio equipment has gotten very good. Pioneer sells
$250/pair tower speakers that actually do justice to Mahler. I use a pair of
KLH Audio mini speakers on my TV. (They cost $15 total, due to a Best Buy
pricing error.) The sound is amazingly neutral, and they can play at high
volumes without "splattering".

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:

Back in the day mastering meant a track didn't throw the stylus on a record=
, and that the tracks were all *close enough* in volume that reaching for t=
he knob wasn't necessary.

Depends. Sometimes that was the case, sometimes it wasn't.

We didn't cater to fans listening on this or that device. It was up to the=
listener and their budget to afford a decent enough stereo to listen on. =

Not at all! In fact, sometimes there would be different mixes made
altogether (or even different recordings) for stereo and mono versions
of a record issue.

It was very common for promo 45s to have different processing than 45s
cut for record store sale, or for jukebox sale. Jukebox discs would
often be equalized differently too, to allow them to be cut much hotter.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

PStamler wrote:
Not so; there are multiple accounts of how Berry Gordy, president of Motown=
Records, insisted that their singles be mastered to sound best on the chea=
p little portable phonographs owned by many of their customers. Indeed, he'=
d audition test pressings on one.=20

The owner of the studio where I worked had a Close 'N Play on his desk. If
the recording couldn't be heard on a Close 'N Play, or even worse if it
SKIPPED on a Close 'N Play, it didn't go out the door.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 30/08/2014 1:36 p.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:


The Compact Disk ought to have brought these musical "perversions" to an
end, but it didn't. The CD was a mass-market replacement for the LP and
Compact Cassette, so these atrocities continued. It wasn't until the
SACD and BD-Audio disk arrived that recording engineers started taking
absolute fidelity seriously * -- because they knew these recordings
would be played on very good equipment.

Absolute f'n bull**** !

geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: On 30/08/2014 1:36 p.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:


The Compact Disk ought to have brought these musical "perversions" to an
end, but it didn't. The CD was a mass-market replacement for the LP and
Compact Cassette, so these atrocities continued. It wasn't until the
SACD and BD-Audio disk arrived that recording engineers started taking
absolute fidelity seriously * -- because they knew these recordings
would be played on very good equipment.

Absolute f'n bull**** !

geoff


Yeah, those higher res formats became just as prone to suitcase mastering as did formats preceding them.

[hank alrich]

geoff wrote:

On 30/08/2014 1:36 p.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:


The Compact Disk ought to have brought these musical "perversions" to an
end, but it didn't. The CD was a mass-market replacement for the LP and
Compact Cassette, so these atrocities continued. It wasn't until the
SACD and BD-Audio disk arrived that recording engineers started taking
absolute fidelity seriously * -- because they knew these recordings
would be played on very good equipment.

Absolute f'n bull**** !

geoff

Yeah, a bit much.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

On 8/29/2014 8:01 PM, wrote:
...influences how music is produced:

And so now we have books such as "Mastering for iTunes."

Don't waster your time on a book, dude, because there's an app for that.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

wrote:

Back in the day mastering meant a track didn't throw the stylus on a
record, and that the tracks were all *close enough* in volume that
reaching for the knob wasn't necessary.

We didn't cater to fans listening on this or that device. It was up to
the listener and their budget to afford a decent enough stereo to
listen on. It wasn't like, "Oh, all the teeny boppers listen to music
on


Who the **** is the "we" you think you represent? You are unbelieveable
dense and arrogant. Tweny minutes _legitimate_ study of the subject
matter would allow you to disavow every ignorant thing you have written
above.

You goddamn right "we", as in people who have made _records_, catered to
this or that playback medium, with individual mixes tailored to the
anticpated playback system.

Have you ever considered talking about stuff you know something,
anything, about? Or is the situation so bad that adopting that approach
would leave you mute?

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Sean Conolly]

wrote in message
...
geoff wrote: On 30/08/2014 1:36 p.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:


The Compact Disk ought to have brought these musical "perversions" to an
end, but it didn't. The CD was a mass-market replacement for the LP and
Compact Cassette, so these atrocities continued. It wasn't until the
SACD and BD-Audio disk arrived that recording engineers started taking
absolute fidelity seriously * -- because they knew these recordings
would be played on very good equipment.

Absolute f'n bull**** !

geoff


Yeah, those higher res formats became just as prone to suitcase mastering
as did formats preceding them.

To think that the industry went from producing good music depite the
hardware limits, to producing crap with no hardware limits. Can't blame the
gear for today's crud.

Been listening to Blue Eyes and Nelson Riddle in the car - 'I've got the
world on a string, sitting on a rainbow...'

Sean

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, August 31, 2014 6:11:37 PM UTC-4, hank alrich wrote:
wrote:



Back in the day mastering meant a track didn't throw the stylus on a

record, and that the tracks were all *close enough* in volume that

reaching for the knob wasn't necessary.



We didn't cater to fans listening on this or that device. It was up to

the listener and their budget to afford a decent enough stereo to

listen on. It wasn't like, "Oh, all the teeny boppers listen to music

on





Who the **** is the "we" you think you represent? You are unbelieveable

dense and arrogant. Tweny minutes _legitimate_ study of the subject

matter would allow you to disavow every ignorant thing you have written

above.



You goddamn right "we", as in people who have made _records_, catered to

this or that playback medium, with individual mixes tailored to the

anticpated playback system.



Have you ever considered talking about stuff you know something,

anything, about? Or is the situation so bad that adopting that approach

would leave you mute?



--

shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com

HankandShaidriMusic.Com

YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

hank alrich = N0NE

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Sean Conolly wrote:
Been listening to Blue Eyes and Nelson Riddle in the car - 'I've got the
world on a string, sitting on a rainbow...'

Quite. To suggest the only well recorded stuff is recent is crap.

--
*This message has been ROT-13 encrypted twice for extra security *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article ,
Sean Conolly wrote:

Been listening to Blue Eyes and Nelson Riddle in the car --
'I've got the world on a string, sitting on a rainbow...'

Quite. To suggest the only well recorded stuff is recent is crap.

"Well-recorded" is meaningless, without some standard.

I'm talking about absolute fidelity -- fidelity to real, live sound.

[William Sommerwerck]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
On 30/08/2014 1:36 p.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:

The Compact Disk ought to have brought these musical "perversions" to an
end, but it didn't. The CD was a mass-market replacement for the LP and
Compact Cassette, so these atrocities continued. It wasn't until the
SACD and BD-Audio disk arrived that recording engineers started taking
absolute fidelity seriously * -- because they knew these recordings
would be played on very good equipment.

Absolute f'n bull**** !

Near-absolute truth.

Most classical CDs have (on an absolute basis) poor sound, because they were
recorded and mastered with the same "attitudes" that controlled the LPs,
cassettes, etc.

Do you REALLY think the best SACDs and BD-Audio disks have such great sound
//by accident//? Like, wow, man, the Moon just happened to be in the seventh
house, and this amazing audio karma fell on us from, like out of nowhere.

I forgot to mention 2L, whose recordings are sonically comparable to Linn's.

[William Sommerwerck]

I'll throw this at all of you...

For those of you who //don't// listen to or record classical and jazz -- what,
exactly, is it that you use as your standard for a "good" recording? That's
not a rhetorical question.


I'll say it again... Once multi-track recording became commonplace, any
lingering belief that recordings should sound like a live performance went out
the window. The introduction of CD, which removed the limitations of LP and
CC, should have "reset" the industry to Living Stereo and Living Presence, but
it didn't -- presumably because recording engineers "knew" that multi-tracking
made a "better" recording.

It's interesting to listen to the Solti Ring in the order the operas were
recorded -- R, S, G, W -- because "Reingold" has the best sound. As Decca's
recording equipment got more complex, the sound became subtly less-natural.

The superb sound of the best SACD and BD recordings is partly due to the
improvement in recording equipment over the past 20 years, but is mostly the
deliberate result of engineers making recordings they know will be most-often
played on good equipment -- that do not need to be compromised for listening
on compromised equipment.

The title of this thread is "What you buy to listen to music on... [affects
the way the recording is made]". This has /always/ been true. The recording
industry (with a few exceptions -- mostly smaller labels) has /always/
pandered to the lowest common denominator of playback equipment.

[geoff]

On 1/09/2014 11:20 a.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Sean Conolly wrote:
Been listening to Blue Eyes and Nelson Riddle in the car - 'I've got the
world on a string, sitting on a rainbow...'

Quite. To suggest the only well recorded stuff is recent is crap.



Oscar Peterson "You look good to me" sound great on vinyl. And even
better on CD.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Most classical CDs have (on an absolute basis) poor sound, because they were
recorded and mastered with the same "attitudes" that controlled the LPs,
cassettes, etc.

Sadly, this is the truth. And sadly, it's mostly because listeners demand
it. Some of this is because people are listening under conditions where
they aren't able to properly experience the accurate sound of the orchestra.
Some of it is because people have in great part forgotten what real live
orchestral sound is like. They go to pops concerts where everything is close
miked and they expect the record to sound like that. DG is happy to provide
that sound for them.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[None]

krissie kretin @gmail.com wrote in message
...
hank alrich = N0NE

Hehe. Do you remember screeching and whining and ordering people never
to refer to me? It really sucks that you can't tell the difference
between Alrich and me. Probably because you're an idiot.

He's right about you using "we" and pretending that you have something
to do with mastering. Nobody here is fooled; you've gone to great
lengths to prove that you're a drooling cretin. You don't know
anything about mastering, and you never will. You're not smart enough
to comprehend mastering.

It's no surprise to find you back here flogging your one-trick hobby
horse. And paving, yet again, that you have no idea what you're
yammering about.

[Sean Conolly]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Sean Conolly wrote:

Been listening to Blue Eyes and Nelson Riddle in the car --
'I've got the world on a string, sitting on a rainbow...'

Quite. To suggest the only well recorded stuff is recent is crap.

"Well-recorded" is meaningless, without some standard.

I'm talking about absolute fidelity -- fidelity to real, live sound.

I have plenty of live sound going on at all times. I'm listening for music,
the stuff that moves you and makes you want to dance or whatever.

Recordings are a means to an end, and by that standard I've heard a lot of
great music that was recorded long before digital or even multi-track tape
became common.

The engineer in me would love to make recordings that sound like a real live
performance. The musician in me says just shut up and listen.

Sean

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article ,
Sean Conolly wrote:

Been listening to Blue Eyes and Nelson Riddle in the car --
'I've got the world on a string, sitting on a rainbow...'

Quite. To suggest the only well recorded stuff is recent is crap.

"Well-recorded" is meaningless, without some standard.

I'm talking about absolute fidelity -- fidelity to real, live sound.

And you reckon that is the case today?

--
*There are two sides to every divorce: Yours and **** head's*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.