It's a pity that this post has been reduced to this after such an interesting article reference, so be it...

@Another User said:

By 'Ridiculous Straw Men' I assume you are referring to non-entities such as Wagner Mozart, Beethoven, etc. yes? Then there's the cryptic sentence "You know from my views what I give you and not more" (????) Deficient argumentation? How about trying arguing for a change? You just brush off any attempt on my part to discuss these matters, not thoroughly, but even a little. "Demonstrates an impoverished quality of thought"? I think impoverished doesn't even approximate it.

"It's 2011. Don't be too shocked that someone finds your insular 19th century western european 'art music' aesthetics wanting." Where have I demonstrated shock?

"You may imagine Mr Errikos that every person that isn't as enthralled as you by these objects is adhering to some vague notion you have about music outside your sphere, 'must be a hip hop loops monger' etc, but that shows your ignorance, not mine." Well, you still haven't provided any examples of great aesthetics for my edification, have you? Thus, you leave me to guess about 'beat-mongerism', especially when you bring up that hilarious example regarding your African rhythm machine, which you put in the same sentence as Bruckner - shows your ignorance, not mine...

"You're welcome to believe that your insular, narrow, smug POV is obtained from the loftiest peak, but I find it's laughable." Insular? Narrow? Only you and that other "special" forumite who said a few months ago that Wagner's contribution to music was the invention of some horns, feel that Mozart, Bach, Brahms, Prokofiev, are 'Straw Men', and she also never dared to suggest examples of music she thought were superior, more interesting, whatever... Like you, she just denounced the musical gods, but she - like you - never allowed us a glimpse of the 'peak', the vantage point from which she was looking down upon them. You believe that the notion of the classical tradition with its "paltry" melodies (and I assume harmonies, counterpoint, structural development, orchestration, etc.) being a view 'from the loftiest peak' is 'laughable'? Since most cultured, educated people from civilizations all around the globe - even when maintaining and respecting their own musical traditions - beg to differ, have you ever suspected that maybe your ideas are laughable? Or is it that all these people are wrong?... Are they all, like me, imprisoned by their ignorance of some fantastic turtle-shell percussionist somewhere in the Galapagos, whose improvisations defecate on the entire western musical output?

"There is music happening all over the globe that people operating out of western europe's paradigms can't touch (and it's been demonstrated by cases that when it does it's oftimes laughable); and you shouldn't be too shocked that the exponents of these musics find your music paltry and lacking as per the things they are interested in." Is sophistication of rhythm your one primary requirement for high musical artistic merit? In that case, show us some of those 'paradigms' that Europeans can't touch! I want to see notation or hear examples! And then at least you will have opened new vistas to my blinkered eyes, and we'll be able to discuss how much more difficult your ethno-pieces are for European percussionists to perform, than it would be for your great musos to just breeze through 'Le Marteau sans Maitre', 'Bone Alphabet', and a myriad other ensemble/percussion pieces for beginners from our "laughable" continental composers.

And I'm still passionately waiting for those references to those celestial, carriers-of-universal-truth melodies that Mozart and Tchaikovsky were just too giftless to conceive.

Cheers.

Civilization 3 is getting into the same old trap that so many make over the years when discussing art on a lowest common denominator basis. I can understand though - but the intellectual basis has no grounding in that type of appraisal because it's reduced to what someone "likes" versus what they "dislike".

That's subjective and understandable because one could argue that's what really counts on an individual basis in the end and why should anyone care what anyone else likes?  But the danger in that is an idiot argument then ensues that is not using, in this case, musical talent at a certain level and any further attainment, but rather personal preferences.

@Errikos said:

You think the puerile, petty rhythmic requirements of any jazz work, or any complicated underground dance sub-genre drum-kit programming (humanly playable) holds a candle to the rhythmic intricacies of difficult classical music?

Wow, someone has a pretty profound ignorance of the entire genre of jazz.  And if jazz is so easy, then when classical players attempt it, why are the results so horrible the vast majority of the time?

I do agree with you about the irrelevance of bringing up sound design in regards to Williams.

@civilization 3 said:

Williams won't be used to score a David Lynch film because it isn't appropriate aesthetically.

Why is that?  did you ever hear the Fury?  That score is a masterpiece and totally unlike his more bright-hued works.  Williams is so huge in his range he could probably do the greatest Lynch score of any (though Badalamenti did  fantastic stuff also).  

This general concept put out by civilization3 that Williams is a "mimic" is false.  As I stated his music cannot help going into familiar territory at times, but his own style is unmistakable and original.  Star Wars main theme - what is that mimicking?  The Jaws bass motif - what is that aping?  Etc. Etc.   You can find sections that sometimes sound like this or that, but any composer writing today in a tonal idiom CAN HAVE THE SAME THING DONE TO HIM out of context.  There is no way NOT to sound like someone else at times, but the question is how unique are your main works, your themes and development and counterpoint and harmony?  Those are what distinguish Williams as a master, and his Tchaikovsky-like fertility of melodic invention.  Not to mention the absolute perfection as functional film music.  I have never heard a scene that Williams scored that made me think - that was too much, or not enough.  He is as unerring in what a film needs as Herrmann. 

@Errikos said:

You think the puerile, petty rhythmic requirements of any jazz work, or any complicated underground dance sub-genre drum-kit programming (humanly playable) holds a candle to the rhythmic intricacies of difficult classical music?

Wow, someone has a pretty profound ignorance of the entire genre of jazz.  And if jazz is so easy, then when classical players attempt it, why are the results so horrible the vast majority of the time?

I do agree with you about the irrelevance of bringing up sound design in regards to Williams.

Personally, I have no love for almost the entire genre of jazz; pure jazz I hate as an idea. This doesn't mean I am ignorant of it (quite the opposite!), except if you're saying "if you know it, you gotta like it..." However, I know that I am in a minority and perhaps the loss is mine. That also doesn't mean I can't tell a bad performance from a good one, or a good one from a great one. As far as your question goes:

1) A great lot of classical musicians suck at jazz because they also suck at classical music, it's just that most jazz-people can't pick that up because their knowledge of classical music with its so many complex layers of sensibilities is only cursory. And by the way, a great lot of jazz-people suck in playing jazz as well, YouTube is replete with them (most play worse than the bad classical players playing jazz). It takes a great musician to play great music.

2) Nobody said jazz was a piece of cake! - see point n.4 - If a great musician plays classical music beautifully, this has come not only from natural talent, but also from extreme, endless amount of study (not just technical) and rituals of different levels of initiation with the material, the list is endless. The same is true on a different scale of jazz players. Talent aside, in their own fashion they study the appropriate repertoire, the different sub-genres, the recordings of the greats, etc., etc., and of course improvise and play in jazz ensembles ceaselessly throughout their lives. It must be a musical ignoramus that will expect a practitioner from a separate style of music to instantly have the skills to mix it with the great - let alone best - practitioners from a different style to his own. If they really wanted to do it though, the classical musician has a much better chance and will adapt to jazz a lot faster (and will enrich it too), than the other way around, because technically he is the superior by a universe apart. He will therefore only have to study the "feel" for a couple or more years, and then only the top jazz people will be his betters (through talent), and not at every level. For a great jazz musician - say pianist - to go from 'swinging', and playing some periodic rhythms, to play 6-voice counterpoint clearly and 'Le Gaspard de la Nuit', it will take a few re-incarnations, but some will eventually be able to do it.

3) I left the aspect of improvisation out of comparing the practitioners of the two styles, because as far as I'm concerned that's composition. And if you wish to compare the - otherwise great - compositions and free-style improvisations of Keith Jarrett, Chick Corea, you name them, with Bach's B minor mass, the Pastoral, the 9th, The Marriage of Figaro, the Meistersingers, Adagio for Strings, the entire piano oeuvres of Chopin, Debussy, Ravel and Prokofiev, Liszt's paraphrases (Improvisations with capital 'I') etc. that is always your prerogative.

4) The snippet from my own post that was quoted is actually absolutely correct whether one prefers one genre to the other. It is not an opinion, it is a fact. When I hyperbolize by saying "puerile" and "petty", it is always in context of comparison of course (say with Michael Finnissy pieces for example), and not indicative of the genre per se.

5) Please don't let 'civilization 3' think that you also agree that Mozart and Tchaikovsky wrote puerile melodies, for I didn't see you criticize any of his positions...

6) Again, this is not the kind of hopeless, futile discussion I was hoping for this time, I just hope a few of you found the article of some use.

P.S.: Paul, do you think 'civ.3' could be Trevor's alias here?

 It needs to be stated that  civilization3 is doing a "Dead-White-European-Male-Anti-European-Western tradition" bullshit session here.  

This has become fashionable these days.  You can display total bigotry and fathomless stupidity while pretending to be enlarging the pathetically limited vision of Western artists to include ethnic groups previously  ignored and disparaged.  This "enlightened" attiude has also become quite commonplace and instantly recognizable.

You said it William, I seem to have missed that part, but now that you mention it, he constantly goes on about this day and age, 19th century aesthetics, it's 2011 etc., as if I'm advocating travelling by steam-train and writing with a fountain pen (both quite quaint actually), as if Beethoven and Brahms are not great precisely because they transcend their time; precisely because people like us - with quite different living circumstances, habits, environ, stimuli, and very different technology - relate in almost exactly the same way to those musical works, we transcend our own time and materials and meet them in this communion of timelessness in the world of ideas. You know this attitude you're talking about is not just endemic in this thread, but in most musical academies in their musicology departments. For decades now, with that hatred of the 'Dead-White-Male', and taking a lot of their cues from recent trends in sociology and philosophy (those disciplines have long been powerless to escape their Marxist black holes), and with their second-hand and diluted dicta they try to wall those geniuses exclusively inside their own time and place, reduce their stature by passionately focusing on some real or imaginary human frailties of theirs (like we care...), and insisting that our perception of their masterpieces changes every couple of decades or so. T w a d d l e . . .

It is nice, however, when the composer for film is technically proficient. We may not like what Hans Zimmer and his whole lot of former trainees are doing (putting texture or wallpaper behind a film), but if it can work for the film, that's OK!
Now, when we take that music onto another medium, say CD, and it is presented like music that could or should 'stand on its own' rather than some audible way of reliving the film (many casual listeners of film music do just that), then we can review it on its musical merits.

Then it will be noticable that most Hans Zimmer music isn't all that great from a compositional perspective. A few of the more skilled film composers like Rósza, Goldsmith, Bernstein and Herrmann were mentioned; at least they knew what they were doing and knew how to make interesting music, even when you listened to it on its own. (Did enyone ever listen to Goldsmith's "Planet of The Apes" on CD?)
Modern day film composers need to give the producer or director or whoever's in charge, exactly what they want, or they'll get sidetracked and rejected.

Classical composers and film composers have to be reviewed differently, because of the medium they were writing for. Their music can only be reviewed as equals when we get to compositional skills. 

This is what the referenced article was addressing among other things - that a great lot of people have been "reduced" to listen and decide what great classical music is, according to how much 'film-music' value that music contains, i.e. anything that contains material that's more or less easily classifiable and pigeon-holeable to one or more of mainstream soundtrack categories: action, drama, comedy, horror/suspense, fantasy, western(!), etc., but this is too superficial (or severely limited) when it comes to listening to superlative classical works, and that is where the example of the 'Out of Africa' main title vs. Prokofiev's 3rd Piano Concerto comes in. John Barry's sensuous beautiful moment is something that instantly captivates a contemporary educated urban (not the genre) audience, and some may actually think it is a superior work to Prokofiev's masterpiece, which in all aspects (inspiration, originality, scope, sophistication, melody, harmony, orchestration, polyphony, form, etc.) drowns the otherwise - like you say, fits the film perfectly, stands on its own as music - great soundtrack.

The problem is, that people today may say exactly what you started your post with: "Music, to me, is emotion". It would be more appropriate to say that most - if not all - music provokes an emotional response. The problem is that the increasingly unsophisticated audiences of today fail to understand that although music provokes an emotional response in them, it also carries stimuli that also provoke a lot of mental calculation, scrutiny, and analysis, which are the result of the composer's self-imposed challenges in a work. The harder and more complex the challenges are, the harder it is for the composer to satisfactorily meet those challenges (the determination of which depends on the musical materials exposed), the higher the expectations and "anxiety" (emotions) on the educated audience. As they monitor in real time the composer's journey and the creative tools he uses to respond to these challenges, the audience's emotions fluctuate in general (ups and downs during the work). If the composer is gifted both in the setting of the materials, but especially in the way he deals with those materials and "makes sense of them", i.e. the way he articulates his journey and solutions, and the more satisfying the mental closure, the greater the emotion and fulfilment the audience will feel in return. And all that is on top of a great tune that might be contained in the work; I mean of course it is part of the whole, but most times it won't be the raison d' etre of a work, as many times it is in film-music.

This failure to notice all this on the part of the modern audience, is due to the - correct for its purposes - superficiality of most film-music, which usually requires digestion and enjoyment on one - maybe two levels (as opposed to Prokofiev's masterpiece, which actually yields infinitely greater fruit when one digs a little deeper, for there actually exists depth there to be dug).

Of course composers should only be reviewed according to the genre to which they contribute, but genres themselves can also be weighed against one another. As far as compositional skills are concerned, if you mean technical skills, they can be reviewed regardless of genre (ex. Williams I would venture is more competent in orchestration - regardless of Spencer's and others' services - than Cage and a host of other classical composers. Hans Zippo on the other hand....)

P.S.: What is an audiovisual editor doing in this forum? Do yo also write, or are you scouting for talent? [;)]

 Those are very interesting ideas Errikos and weslldeckers -  what I often think about the quality (or lack of it)  of film music is that it seems to be "optional."  In other words, a musician can provide a score that is a great piece of music, or a lousy piece of garbage and - amazingly enough - either one of them may work for the film.  This principle is what the Zimmerites are using to get away with semi-musical sludge as opposed to actual music scores.    But on the other hand, a good composer can write something beautiful  musically that is irritating and distracting from the film.  And all this is why it is remarkable how Herrmann and a few others did both - writing good (sometimes great) music that was also absolutely perfect for what the film needed.   

I must say I somewhat disagree with the principle behind this original article however.  Essentially the author is stating that film music is not as good as Beethoven.  In a way, that is a stupid thing to say.  Because it is mixing up many different contexts into an aesthetic mishmash.  One should ask the question - is ANY film music as good as the concert music written at the same time.  If that question is asked, I would answer - some film music is BETTER than much of the concert music written in the 20th century.   EVerybody compares Joe Blow film composer to Stravinsky.  What about  Bernard Herrmann or Jerry Goldsmith to any of the thousands of music professors imitating Berg, Webern, Ligeti, Schoenberg, etc. ad infinitum to the boredom and ear-splitting nausea of their enslaved audiences who gradually decided - over the course of about 20 years - they HATE concert music.  WHY do they hate it?  Did you ever ask that question?  Is it because it is all peerless masterpieces? Or could it be as mediocre in general as the favorite whipping boy of the musical snobs - film music?

@weslldeckers said:

Modern day film composers need to give the producer or director or whoever's in charge, exactly what they want, or they'll get sidetracked and rejected.

The problem is most producers and directors don't really know what they want until they hear it and most, even after hearing it, still don't know what they want. 

H.Z. is the hottest composer in Hollywood today and that means he's the most compositionally handicapped because he could score a film by doing nothing more than play scales on a moog synthesizer and everyone would cheer, applaud, give him the thumbs up sign and rave, "Bravo Hans, yet another triumph!"  Why? because he's H.Z.  Of course if I were to score a film by playing scales on my moog the next thing I'd be scoring is a Shamwow infomercial playing on some obscure cable network at three o' clock in the morning.  And I'd be lucky to get that. 

Until recently, I've never actually scored visual media.  Just for the experience, I offered my services to a film student who was making a Michael Moore styled documentary and for a particular scene he wanted me to compose something in the vein of Carmine Coppola's score for Apocalypes Now.  Impressed by the 20 year old's knowledge of Carmine Coppola I thought he meant something like the surreal spooky moog music playing during the Battle of Do Long Bridge sequence where Willard and Lance are crawling through the trenches at night during a North Vietnamese attack.  Unfortunately, that's not what the young filmaker meant.  He meant the famous beach raid scene where Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" is playing.  He thought Coppola composed "The Ride of the Valkyries."  Robert Duval's character, Colonel Kilgore, even said before starting the music, "I use WAGNER!... My boys love it!"

Do you all see what we're dealing with here?      

Thanks for the sobering anecdote there Jasen; it also reinforces the article's point that audiences today respond to film-like classical music instead of the other way around, which would be responding positively to an instrumental soundtrack because it also shares some artistic traits with the musical landmarks of western tradition. As it happens, your friend is aware of the completely decontextualized version of the 'Valkyries', reminding me of those decontextualized best-sellers of the '70s 'Hooked on Classics' - strip away the great tune from the great work (which of course stands on its own) and collate that with other great such tunes for a disco medley... Thus the tired in the audience today have lost the capacity to follow a great work from beginning to end, and wake up only when the tune comes in, "tuning-off" straight after... What an (an)aesthetic... I suppose I should be elated they are still capable of enjoying some beat-less music.

Of course William is right in elevating Herrmann and Goldsmith on top of most of the modern serious clones; that's what you get when musical creation becomes so blueprinted and cookbooked - "these are today's matrices boys, and those are today's fashionable percussion and woodwinds articulations; go nuts!" Hence, the justified exodus of the already lighter-minded audiences, with the inexorable result that most of the people who will happily sit through Herrmann, Williams, Goldsmith, and Morricone suites, cannot communicate with Brahms, Wagner, let alone Scriabin, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Bartok, Shostakovich, Britten, forget Lutoslawcki, Ligeti, and Xenakis. And I think that this is what the author is addressing, that audiences today are incapable of appreciating the great music of the 20th century (or even 19th, 18th), due to their limited scope; I'm not sure he expects them to delight in some 10th rate Lachenmann hopeful (brrrrr, can you imagine?...)

@Errikos said:

And I think that this is what the author is addressing, that audiences today are incapable of appreciating the great music of the 20th century (or even 19th, 18th), due to their limited scope; I'm not sure he expects them to delight in some 10th rate Lachenmann hopeful (brrrrr, can you imagine?...)

However by the same token, most audiences are not interested in the relationship between arpeggiated bitonal augmented chords with deliberately thwarted resolutions in Vertigo and the simultaneous attraction-repulsion, sex-death dichotomies of that profoundly psychological story.  

They prefer something with a beat.

"Unfortunately, that's not what the young filmaker meant.  He meant the famous beach raid scene where Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" is playing.  He thought Coppola composed "The Ride of the Valkyries"

*ROTFL*

On the other hand, I wouldn´t make a guess how many people actually think that "An der schönen blauen Donau" was composed specifically for Odyssee 2001. :)

So in the end, if the young director doesn´t like your music, just send him 25 clicks down the Lu Dong river.....

@kleinholgi said:

On the other hand, I wouldn´t make a guess how many people actually think that "An der schönen blauen Donau" was composed specifically for Odyssee 2001. 😊

You're not referring to that "paltry" waltzy melody, are you? My favourite soundtrack - and the greatest music of all time - is the one from the film 'Immortal Beloved' (although the composer stole the best bits from Michael Kamen's 'Die Hard' and Maurice Jarre's 'Dead Poets Society'). That, and 'Amadeus' really left me gasping for air! I wonder who it was that scored those beauties? It couldn't have been Hans; could it?...

Less is a lot more when it comes to scoring these days.

One of the really great television series that happened over the last 5 years was obviously Deadwood which was written and scripted on a Shakespearean scale. My God, they even included soliloquies which is not something you see every day in say, Coronation Street.  Apart from the opening 90 second intro music (which in fact was very good and appropriate for the series) the only time you heard any other scoring was when something portentous was about to happen and then it was very much 'played back'. In other words, unobtrusive and quite rare over a one hour episode.

It's very difficult today for morons to be unobtrusive in more or less any walk of life and filmscoring is no exception. Apart from Trevor of course. The very idea that Trevor could even begin to write moronic televisual scores is tant amount to musical treason.

Goof afternoon.

@jasensmith said:

Apparently Mr. Ridder hasn't heard any recent film music as this statement doesn't explain the current state of affairs.

I may sound like I'm mocking Mr. Ridder but I do agree with his overall premis that there is "More to Music Than Music" but I think how much more depends on the listener.  I know friends who are hard core Heavy Metal listeners who rattle off the names of obscure artists most have never heard of and intensely listen to swaths of loud distorted power chords, and high pitched overdriven arpeggio patterns bobbing their heads up and down (called 'head banging').  I just don't hear what it is my friends are hearing.  Is there art or aesthetic nourishment in what they are listening to?  They can't hear what I'm hearing in Prokofiev's Third.  Why is Classical and/or Film music considered high brow while everything else is not? 

I'm sure Mr. Ridder has unfortunately (like the rest of us) heard a lot of recent film-music, but I posted this reference in order to put in 'Perspective' the differences and "distances" in artistic quality that separates the best of soundtracks from the great "classical" (ca. 1700-1970) musical tradition, as he did, let alone the incalculable void between that and the Reznors and Zimmers of this world. I'm sick and tired of hearing and reading the 'wow's and 'aaah's in YouTube or VSL commentaries about the absolute basest, ineptest, and inconsequentialest of musical drivel, and how John Williams, Jerry Goldsmith, and Bernard Herrmann are the gods of music in general! - I am glad that a couple of threads appeared addressing Mussorgsky, Mahler, etc.

Yes, the main theme to 'Out of Africa' is great, sensuous, whatever, but it does not belong in the same sentence with Prokofiev's 3rd piano concerto. And even if the example is unfair - 3 minutes compared to 30 - the same could be said about the whole of the Star Wars saga soundtrack - 250 minutes (or whatever) compared to Prokofiev's 30. Nor should it be, and this is not derogatory to Williams' incredible score. What the article points out is the discrepancy in sensibility and artistic quality between one genre and the other. Even Herrmann's best offerings (or Steiner's, Korngold's, etc.), excerpts of which could easily have formed parts of concert works, do not come within intergalactic distance to Prokofiev's 3rd as a whole. Nor should they; it was not their function. 

However, it is the limited sensibilities of today's audiences that have mostly come to appreciate film-like symphonic music that was addressed in the article and I found interesting to share. As far as Jasen's head-banging friends, I am sure they are appreciating far more original music than a lot of directors/producers who pay good money for slightly disguised Anemato-inSpiritoso-Hollywoodsteals-Cinescamples tempo/harmonic flexible tin-cannned scores. 

Strongly agree with the central thesis of this post.

 What I do NOT agree with is that all film composers are inferior to classical composers - which this statement implies. 

I strongly feel that Bernard Herrmann is a major composer - in any category - of the 20th century, regardless of whether he did film music or not.  And that much of his music - as pure music - is BETTER than a lot of Prokofiev's.  Maybe this or that piece, not as good as this or that piece, whatever.  But he would have had nothing to be ashamed of in comparison.   And that people who look down upon him in comparison to Prokofiev do so out of mere conventional prejudice against both film music and cinema in general, which has always struggled against the stigma of being more desired and more needed by more people than any other art form in world history. 

@jasensmith said:

Until recently, I've never actually scored visual media.  Just for the experience, I offered my services to a film student who was making a Michael Moore styled documentary and for a particular scene he wanted me to compose something in the vein of Carmine Coppola's score for Apocalypes Now.  Impressed by the 20 year old's knowledge of Carmine Coppola I thought he meant something like the surreal spooky moog music playing during the Battle of Do Long Bridge sequence where Willard and Lance are crawling through the trenches at night during a North Vietnamese attack.  Unfortunately, that's not what the young filmaker meant.  He meant the famous beach raid scene where Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" is playing.  He thought Coppola composed "The Ride of the Valkyries."  Robert Duval's character, Colonel Kilgore, even said before starting the music, "I use WAGNER!... My boys love it!"

Do you all see what we're dealing with here?      

Mixed feelings. Should one cry or should one laugh?

@PaulR said:

Less is a lot more when it comes to scoring these days.

One of the really great television series that happened over the last 5 years was obviously Deadwood which was written and scripted on a Shakespearean scale. My God, they even included soliloquies which is not something you see every day in say, Coronation Street.  Apart from the opening 90 second intro music (which in fact was very good and appropriate for the series) the only time you heard any other scoring was when something portentous was about to happen and then it was very much 'played back'. In other words, unobtrusive and quite rare over a one hour episode.

It's very difficult today for morons to be unobtrusive in more or less any walk of life and filmscoring is no exception. Apart from Trevor of course. The very idea that Trevor could even begin to write moronic televisual scores is tant amount to musical treason.

Deadwood is a masterpiece by any standards. Imagine a TV-series combining the depth and insight of Shakespeare, Balzac and Marx. Unbelievable that they actually pulled off such a combination, I wouldn't have believed televison today was capable of something like that if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes.