Playing the saxophone Jazz standards in Education

[Jez Watson]

You only have to go to a 60th birthday party and listen to what the DJ plays to see what have become standards.

Thats rather depressing then! I doubt it’s true though

 

[Wade Cornell]

I have to say this thread has been an excellent read, and i can respect all opinions that have been written in it, but for me it boils down to choice and a persons right to choose their musical journey, were all adults(with the exception of Trimmy)LOL only joking, so whether we go mainstream or not does it really matter as long as the individual is learning what he/she wants from their own journey.

Maybe you are right, as those responding and reading this are mostly adults, some learned to play when younger, and some are teachers. It could be useful for some to consider whether the training they had, or the training they are currently giving others is too narrow in it's approach by using a single phase/style and trying to perpetuate it instead of a wider musical base upon which you (as adults) can make your choice.

Can you (as an adult) make an an informed choice if you have never been exposed to the alternatives? Are your ears even open at this stage? Younger students are a blank slate. How many young students when taking saxophone lessons have the experience to say "I just want to play standards and learn in the style of the 1950s?" They don't. Is that having choice? So you learn to play in a style that none of your peers are interested in and with which you will never have much of an audience.

The tracks now being posted in the "your soundclips section" are not mainstream or standards. Can those trained in the mainstream style improvise to these in a manner that fits? These will be posted daily for a while so that people will have the opportunity to have a go at any that they find interesting.

The point is that there is a whole wide world of music which the saxophone can play and improvise to, it's not limited to standards and one style. This thread is about teaching standards. The only point I've tried to make is that it may be a good idea to be teaching a wider syllabus. Those who have defended mainstream teaching have (generally) said that if one has the mainstream vocabulary then you can play anything. OK, the experiment is on for those who think this to be true to improvise convincingly in these other styles.

The question isn't whether you personally like the style, and it's certainly not an attempt to convince anyone of what their personal choices/taste in music should be. This is about teaching and giving a sax player the necessary tools to play so that they can thrive and survive. Is there any argument about mainstream players not being in demand? Is the teaching industry providing players who can play in other styles? These are at the core of this thread.

"Language" is often used as a metaphor for what we learn in playing. To be a successful musician today you need to be fluent in many languages, not just one. Pete Thomas didn't make his way as a pro based on only being able to play in the mainstream style.

There is also a larger question pertinent to this site: "Is this strictly a clubhouse for those interested in mainstream and playing standards?" Would it enrich or dilute the Cafe to be more inclusive of a wider world of sax playing? Mainstream players are certainly the the vast majority here. Are you open minded or a clique?

 

[Wade Cornell]

ah, at last, something I can understand... Wade, do you want to do the backing track, or shall I?

One of the big flaws of the 'Improvise Over The Changes' way of doing things is that there's always the danger that you will tend to improvise the same way on every tune and be so busy concentrating on the changes that you'll forget the individual nature of melody and what the piece is meant to be about. Many of the more astute jazz musicians of the 50's realised that playing over the changes all the time on the same old standards wasn't adequate and some other approach was needed. This is kind of what Ornette Coleman was getting at, that you have to improvise on each piece of music differently and try to express the essence of what the tune is about. In his case the harmony was a result of the interplay of the musicians and not a fixed framework and the melody became the framework to play with.
To a greater or lesser extent, this approach influenced many other musicians including Sonny Rollins, John Coltrane, Eric Dolphy, Miles Davis, and Charles Mingus - although those latter two publicly scorned Ornette, they did absorb some of his ideas into their own music.... listen to the Dolphy/ Mingus bass clarinet and double bass improvisations on recordings like 'Mingus In Antibes' and you can hear them talking, joking, laughing and swearing at each other using their instruments. Learning to make your instrument talk is a useful skill if you're interested in self expression. It's not only about what you say, but also how you say it.
My point being, that the freedom that is (over) exemplified in the Ono/Zorn duet above is something that is neither encouraged nor allowed to flourish in jazz anymore. The vocalised cries and exuberant yelps of New Orleans are no longer welcome, the free spirited song of Bird in full flight has been reduced down to the dullest possible methodology and if people ever do express something of their inner feelings in jazz anymore then they do it in the politest possible terms.

If musicians don't have much to say for themselves, then don't expect anyone to want to listen - would anyone go and see a young comedian doing a routine by a 1950's comic?
When you think about it, most stand up comedians are far better improvisers than most musicians and they manage to entertain as well. We've got a lot to learn that isn't in the textbooks.

There are two tracks already posted in "your soundclips" the first is with sax and the second is without so that others can "do their thing". It would be a pleasure to collaborate on a track in the near future.

The tracks posted (and the ones to come) tend toward the melodic style of improvisation, which IMHO is the more communicative. Playing cut and paste arpeggios and riffs at speed may say something about the time and energy spent in practicing those, but may not give the listener anything else musically.

I hope that at least some of the tracks to be posted are enjoyed. If nothing else they can certainly provide some exercises in thinking outside the mainstream box.

Cheers!

 

[jazzdoh]

Maybe you are right, as those responding and reading this are mostly adults, some learned to play when younger, and some are teachers. It could be useful for some to consider whether the training they had, or the training they are currently giving others is too narrow in it's approach by using a single phase/style and trying to perpetuate it instead of a wider musical base upon which you (as adults) can make your choice.

Can you (as an adult) make an an informed choice if you have never been exposed to the alternatives? Are your ears even open at this stage? Younger students are a blank slate. How many young students when taking saxophone lessons have the experience to say "I just want to play standards and learn in the style of the 1050s?" They don't. Is that having choice? So you learn to play in a style that none of your peers are interested in and with which you will never have much of an audience.

The tracks now being posted in the "your soundclips section" are not mainstream or standards. Can those trained in the mainstream style improvise to these in a manner that fits? These will be posted daily for a while so that people will have the opportunity to have a go at any that they find interesting.

The point is that there is a whole wide world of music which the saxophone can play and improvise to, it's not limited to standards and one style. This thread is about teaching standards. The only point I've tried to make is that it may be a good idea to be teaching a wider syllabus. Those who have defended mainstream teaching have (generally) said that if one has the mainstream vocabulary then you can play anything. OK, the experiment is on for those who think this to be true to improvise convincingly in these other styles.

The question isn't whether you personally like the style, and it's certainly not an attempt to convince anyone of what their personal choices/taste in music should be. This is about teaching and giving a sax player the necessary tools to play so that they can thrive and survive. Is there any argument about mainstream players not being in demand? Is the teaching industry providing players who can play in other styles? These are at the core of this thread.

"Language" is often used as a metaphor for what we learn in playing. To be a successful musician today you need to be fluent in many languages, not just one. Pete Thomas didn't make his way as a pro based on only being able to play in the mainstream style.

There is also a larger question pertinent to this site: "Is this strictly a clubhouse for those interested in mainstream and playing standards?" Would it enrich or dilute the Cafe to be more inclusive of a wider world of sax playing? Mainstream players are certainly the the vast majority here. Are you open minded or a clique?

Wade i respect your dedication to your music but i for one am older enough to understand what i like and don't like and like i said its down to choice,i choose to play what i play and are happy doing so,30 years into my musical journey and this is one dog that doesn't want to learn new tricks.

 

[Jez Watson]

I studied music at Leeds college from 93-96 as a bass player, the course title was “ graduate diploma in Jazz, Contempary and popular music” and there was also a BA in Jazz just starting, there were plenty of sax players at the college, they all sounded different and some were more blues/rock and others more jazz , no one was forced into a box, it was up to the student to find their playing interests outside a few bands that were timetabled and those that bothered to do this it seemed to me became very good and found their voice in which ever particular vein they preferred, myself as a bass player, I did the minimum to get my qualification and lived a way from the college and didn’t socialise outside college with the other students.
I don’t really know why I’m saying this?
It seems to me that even if you go to college and get force fed “standards” and made to learn that language, those that have it within themselves to musically go outside these parameters and have more of an inmate ability are going to find whatever it is they feel the need to do to find their voice outside of the standard repoirtoir.
It also seems to me that most of the posts on this thread haven’t been about answering the OP’s question?

 

[Wade Cornell]

Wade i respect your dedication to your music but i for one am older enough to understand what i like and don't like and like i said its down to choice,i choose to play what i play and are happy doing so,30 years into my musical journey and this is one dog that doesn't want to learn new tricks.

Please re-read. This was NEVER about you or trying to change anyone's taste in music. It's about TEACHING. As in teaching standards and mainstream as the ONLY music that a sax player should learn. You can and should enjoy and play whatever you want. I 100% endorse your freedom to do whatever you want. I also think that students (NOT YOU) should be educated in a manner that does not preclude their exposure to a wide variety of music that will enable them to make a choice. THIS IS ABOUT HAVING AN OPEN SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS CHOICE.

 

[Wade Cornell]

I studied music at Leeds college from 93-96 as a bass player, the course title was “ graduate diploma in Jazz, Contempary and popular music” and there was also a BA in Jazz just starting, there were plenty of sax players at the college, they all sounded different and some were more blues/rock and others more jazz , no one was forced into a box, it was up to the student to find their playing interests outside a few bands that were timetabled and those that bothered to do this it seemed to me became very good and found their voice in which ever particular vein they preferred, myself as a bass player, I did the minimum to get my qualification and lived a way from the college and didn’t socialise outside college with the other students.
I don’t really know why I’m saying this?
It seems to me that even if you go to college and get force fed “standards” and made to learn that language, those that have it within themselves to musically go outside these parameters and have more of an inmate ability are going to find whatever it is they feel the need to do to find their voice outside of the standard repoirtoir.
It also seems to me that most of the posts on this thread haven’t been about answering the OP’s question?

You are right. My asking "whether studying mainstream and standards is the best practice" was outside the OP's request. The OP was asked whether he wanted the thread bifurcated to reflect this. He declined saying that he found it thoght provoking (or words to that effect).

I don't know if you have kept up with teaching. I'm aware of what has happened in the USA and has spread to other countries. There is currently a very strong push to educate anyone interested in jazz/improvised music towards a strict mainstream/standards type of syllabus. I can't say whether this is universal, but it is quite prevalent. As said in a post on the fist page, in the USA this has happened as the result of money becoming available through several acts of congress that specifically endorse ONLY AMERICAN forms of jazz (read Dixieland and Mainstream). Those acts of congress also have a provision for influencing other countries in a similar manner. This is not conspiracy theory it is out in the open, no digging, postulation, or paranoia required.

I sincerely hope that currently in the UK educators are not being influenced to the same degree and that students are encouraged to become aware of all of the possibilities the world o music has to offer. If they wish to become professionals a wide syllabus would certainly be the best way to prepare for the bumpy road any aspiring musician must ride.

 

[jbtsax]

There have been countless claims in this thread that in the U.S. students in universities and music schools are being pushed or channeled into learning and playing only mainstream jazz. Here is one example that demonstrates otherwise.
Bachelor of Music in Professional Music | Berklee College of Music

 

[Wade Cornell]

There have been countless claims in this thread that in the U.S. students in universities and music schools are being pushed or channeled into learning and playing only mainstream jazz. Here is one example that demonstrates otherwise.
Bachelor of Music in Professional Music | Berklee College of Music

I'm certainly glad that Berklee, a very prestigious music school, is not strictly part of the government handout gravy train. That's a very welcome relief, but only one school out of tens of thousands of High Schools that take the money and hundreds of Universities. It's certainly not a law (yet?) that every school in the USA must only teach strictly an AMERICAN style of jazz. Just disappointing that only the most prestigious music school in the country (which obviously has more than one style of music they teach) is bothering to do so. Berklee also has many of the world's finest musicians on their staff, who probably wouldn't stick around if the syllabus was so one sided.

Hopefully other Universities and conservatories will do likewise.

 

[MrBlueNote]

I'm certainly glad that Berklee, a very prestigious music school, is not strictly part of the government handout gravy train.

 

[altissimo]

From what I remember, there have been occasions on this forum when someone's asked about improvising and immediately got a lot of advice about improvising over chord changes and it's taken a while before anyone bothered to ask what kind of music they played. So I think it's sometimes assumed that improvisation equals bebop
What's appropriate for jazz improvisation may not be appropriate if you're playing rock, pop, blues, funk, soul, reggae, ska, trad jazz, bhangra, Romanian wedding music etc
Over the last 15 years or so, more colleges are running courses on popular music and employing lecturers who know about more than just classical music or big band jazz, so things are slowly becoming more diverse.

Back to the subject of standards... I tend to think that standards only became a thing to play because musicians were getting together at jam sessions so they played tunes that they were all familiar with. Also record companies favoured standards since they would take little rehearsal and thus be cheaper to record than original compositions, Of course some of the original compositions like Round Midnight also became standards.
I read somewhere that Miles Davis's choice of standards was influenced by the tunes recorded by Ahmad Jamal and I suspect these days jazz musicians only play a lot of those old tunes because people like Miles played them.
In the introduction to The Jazz Standards: A Guide to the Repertoire by Ted Gioia the author states that he "would welcome a more expansive and adaptive repertoire and would happily embrace the very changes in the artform that would make the selections in this book obsolete" and there's definitely something a bit odd about jazz being so focused on old show tunes and not keeping up to date with the times.
It's nice to listen to what those great musicians did with those old tunes and how they used them to express their creative genius, but it's the creative genius that's the important thing and learning to play 'Surrey With The Fringe On Top' won't necessarily get you very far in exploring that aspect of yourself.
So if you're going to play standards, then pick the ones that really mean something to you and make them your own. And throw in a few modern tunes as well if you can

 

[jbtsax]

Is everyone aware of US Congressional bills H.Con.Res.57 - 100th Congress (1987-1988); H.R.1682 - 114th Congress (2015-2016); HR 4626- 115 Congress (2017-2018).

Rather than debate all of the misinformation contained in the rest of this post, I will simply provide a link to HR 4626-115 and let members decide for themselves.

H.R.4626 - National Jazz Preservation, Education, and Promulgation Act of 2017

 

[Wade Cornell]

Seems you missed the part about the US Congress passing bills that give money for AMERICAN Jazz. You can read that as PURE American jazz with no foreign influences. The first two bills make this a bit more clear where the one above that jbtsax refers to is just topping up the funding so doesn't go into the details of the first. He makes the point of Berklee, a very prestigious music school, having a wider syllabus, which is great news, but one would hope and expect that to be the case as its faculty is made up from some of the world's best musicians who wouldn't take kindly to being bribed or bullied by the US government.

 

[MrBlueNote]

He makes the point of Berklee, a very prestigious music school, having a wider syllabus, which is great news, but one would hope and expect that to be the case as its faculty is made up from some of the world's best musicians who wouldn't take kindly to being bribed or bullied by the US government.

The world's best musicians are being "bribed and bullied" by the US government, because congress has allocated some minuscule part of the federal budget towards the preservation of jazz? Isn't that just a bit of a leap?

 

[Wade Cornell]

The world's best musicians are being "bribed and bullied" by the US government, because congress has allocated some minuscule part of the federal budget towards the preservation of jazz? Isn't that just a bit of a leap?

What was said is that they are obviously NOT taking the money. Schools everywhere are short of operating funds, especially in music and the arts. Do you doubt this? The US government is holding out money for teaching a specific curriculum. How many of those schools do you think refuse it? More power to Berklee!

Doesn't matter if you disagree with any and all of this. Your opinion is respected. No need to twist what anyone says. Just disagree. The more interesting point is that Berklee seems to have got it. Jazz teaching for them is about preparing their students to be top professionals. The faculty of Berklee seems to now be advocating exactly what is being discussed: opening up people's minds to a wider musical perspective so that they can cope with all sorts of genres as professionals. Hopefully that vision will trickle down and other schools will likewise refuse the government's money and keep their integrity. I think it's likely that Berklee, as a private music school, feels pressured more than most universities to ensure that a large number of their graduates become full time professionals. That would certainly far outweigh what you describe as the minuscule funds. If their graduates aren't getting work as professionals that would certainly kill their reputation.

You certainly don't need to take notice of my rants and raves, but may wish to take note of what Berklee is now teaching their Jazz students.

 

[kevgermany]

Let's keep this apolitical, in line with forum rules.

 

[nigeld]

@Wade Cornell - you say:

Seems you missed the part about the US Congress passing bills that give money for AMERICAN Jazz. You can read that as PURE American jazz with no foreign influences. The first two bills make this a bit more clear where the one above that jbtsax refers to is just topping up the funding so doesn't go into the details of the first. He makes the point of Berklee, a very prestigious music school, having a wider syllabus, which is great news, but one would hope and expect that to be the case as its faculty is made up from some of the world's best musicians who wouldn't take kindly to being bribed or bullied by the US government.

The bills you quote are:
H.Con.Res.57 - 100th Congress (1987-1988);
Text of H.Con.Res. 57 (100th): A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress respecting the designation of jazz ... (Passed Congress version) - GovTrack.us
H.R.1682 - 114th Congress (2015-2016);
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1682/text?q={"search":["h.r.1682"]}&r=14
HR 4626- 115 Congress (2017-2018).
Text - H.R.4626 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): National Jazz Preservation, Education, and Promulgation Act of 2017
(referenced by @jbtsax in an earlier post)

You wrote earlier:

These bills recognize jazz as an "American" art form and make it possible for $$$$$ to be given for it's promotion in America as well as abroad. To be precise it only wishes to only recognize jazz that happened in America. That means free from foreign influence and specifically excludes anything tainted by styles like Bossa Nova, Gypsy Jazz, Fusion, and certainly none of that European stuff! Well, that narrows it down to Dixieland and Mainstream as the others are too polluted by non American ideas.

If this is the case, then I cannot see it.

H.Con.Res.57 - 100th Congress (1987-1988) which is a resolution that provides no money and has no legal status, simply celebrates Jazz as an art form which originated in America and which has spread worldwide. It does not suggest in any way that American Jazz is better than foreign Jazz or should be treated differently. Indeed it states that Jazz
(4) has evolved into a multifaceted art form which continues to birth and nurture new stylistic idioms and cultural fusions,
(5) has had an historic, pervasive, and continuing influence on other genres of music both here and abroad, and
(6) has become a true international language adopted by musicians around the world as a music best able to express contemporary realities from a personal perspective;

H.R.1682 - 114th Congress (2015-2016) provides funding to support Jazz in various ways, but does not specify that the Jazz has to be American. The bill provides funding for "Jazz", not "American Jazz". It does not refer to the earlier resolution.

HR 4626- 115 Congress (2017-2018), as you say, simply continues the funding in the earlier bill.

I do not get a sense that any of these only recognize jazz that happened in America.

 

[jbtsax]

Here is the official summary of the National Jazz Preservation, Education, and Promulgation Act of 2015

Establishes a National Jazz Preservation Program and a National Jazz Appreciation Program, to be carried out by the Smithsonian Institution through the National Museum of American History, to: (1) preserve knowledge and promote education about jazz, and (2) further the appreciation of jazz music throughout the nation.

Requires the Smithsonian Institution to: (1) record audio and video interviews with leading jazz artists; (2) acquire, preserve, and interpret jazz artifacts; (3) continue to recognize Jazz Appreciation Month; (4) establish collaborative agreements with specified entities for the sharing of such artifacts; and (5) encourage, consult with, and engage in capacity building with community-based and regional organizations with the potential to establish jazz archival collections.

Amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to allow certain funds to be made available under the Act for programs to promote jazz education, which may include: (1) a Jazz Artists in the Schools program; (2) a program for the development of lesson plans and other educational materials about jazz, the distribution of such materials, and teacher training on jazz education; and (3) an Ambassadors of Jazz program. [emphasis added]

Requires the Smithsonian Institution to establish a series of jazz performances at Smithsonian affiliates throughout the nation that provides broad geographic access to jazz and supports public appreciation for the diversity of jazz music.

Please note that there is no mention of university music programs, nor funding of such in any of this legislation.

This entire discussion begs the question of why the U.S. should even promote "European Free Jazz" in the first place. It may have started in the U.S, like "traditional" jazz forms, but achieved very little public acceptance (or commercial success)---certainly nothing compared to how it was received in Europe and other places. Perhaps it would be more appropriate for the governments of those countries to fund the appreciation and education in that style of jazz. The intent and purpose of these Congressional Resolutions is in fact benign. Anything nefarious or sinister with regard to the government controlling how jazz is taught is only in the eye and mind of the beholder.

Since there are fewer and fewer opportunities to make a living playing jazz or any of its relate styles in the U.S., most universities are now offering courses in what is called "commercial music" where there are opportunities to make a living in music in addition to playing and teaching. In reality in my state, most of the top jazz players make a living in other fields. They studied and played jazz at the university because of a talent and a love for playing that style of music.

I hope this discussion can move beyond the previous negativity and show respect for everyone's musical choices and viewpoints.

 

[Wade Cornell]

@Wade Cornell - you say:



The bills you quote are:
H.Con.Res.57 - 100th Congress (1987-1988);
Text of H.Con.Res. 57 (100th): A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress respecting the designation of jazz ... (Passed Congress version) - GovTrack.us
H.R.1682 - 114th Congress (2015-2016);
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1682/text?q={"search":["h.r.1682"]}&r=14
HR 4626- 115 Congress (2017-2018).
Text - H.R.4626 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): National Jazz Preservation, Education, and Promulgation Act of 2017
(referenced by @jbtsax in an earlier post)

You wrote earlier:


If this is the case, then I cannot see it.

H.Con.Res.57 - 100th Congress (1987-1988) which is a resolution that provides no money and has no legal status, simply celebrates Jazz as an art form which originated in America and which has spread worldwide. It does not suggest in any way that American Jazz is better than foreign Jazz or should be treated differently. Indeed it states that Jazz
(4) has evolved into a multifaceted art form which continues to birth and nurture new stylistic idioms and cultural fusions,
(5) has had an historic, pervasive, and continuing influence on other genres of music both here and abroad, and
(6) has become a true international language adopted by musicians around the world as a music best able to express contemporary realities from a personal perspective;

H.R.1682 - 114th Congress (2015-2016) provides funding to support Jazz in various ways, but does not specify that the Jazz has to be American. The bill provides funding for "Jazz", not "American Jazz". It does not refer to the earlier resolution.

HR 4626- 115 Congress (2017-2018), as you say, simply continues the funding in the earlier bill.

I do not get a sense that any of these only recognize jazz that happened in America.

Interesting the way you have used selective reading to interpret this bill. At the beginning it describes jazz as:
" an indigenous American music and art form, bringing to this country
and the world a uniquely American musical synthesis and culture
'"i through the African-American experience and—
(1) makes evident to the world an outstanding artistic model of
individual expression and democratic cooperation within the cre-
ative process, thus fulfilling the highest ideals and aspirations of
our republic"

That's saying It belong to America.

Later it says:

" Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),
That it is the sense of the Congress that jazz is hereby designated as
a rare and valuable national American treasure to which we should
devote our attention, support and resources to make certain it is
preserved, understood, and promulgated.
Agreed to December 4, 1987. "

This bill is not a budget item, but instead sets up the the basis for financial support. "Support and resource" = using money to foster American jazz. Making certain it is "preserved, understood and promulgated" = education.

You don't need to be a lawyer to understand this, you only need to read the parts of the bill that are relevant, which the selective quotation seems to have missed.

This discussion is turning ugly with what appear to be deliberate misquotes. The American congress did something that they thought was a good thing by recognizing and supporting an art form that certainly originated there. It's unfortunate that it would seem that the distribution of funding wasn't to help music and the arts in general, but specifically tied to Jazz as an American art form using specific terms like "preserved, understood and promulgated". So the money has been flowing (how much I don't know as this bill is not a budget bill) since some time in after 1987 and for a very specific and defined purpose. What do you think your chances would be to obtain a grant through the funding that has been available to study Bossa Nova? How about fusion? Would these fit under preservation of that uniquely American jazz?

The whole topic is getting quite wobbly now with an attempt at polarization and trying to provoke an us and them situation through emotional statements and misquotations.

There is just one relevant thing/issue:
Is it a good idea to teach a strict diet of mainstream style playing and standards to students or would they be better off with a wider scope of study? It would seem that America's foremost music institution (Berklee) has decided that a wider base of training is a good idea.

Defenders of continuing to teach a strictly mainstream/standards style of education (generally) state that an education in mainstream technique and playing standards is the best basis for learning. Is this true or not? Berklee no longer thinks so. What appears to be true is that learning mainstream and standards will make you proficient at playing that style of music (in keeping with the congregational bill's purpose of "preserved, understood and promulgated"). Does it prepare the student to play as a professional in a world that has no call for mainstream music? The faculty of Berklee have taken their stand in this issue.

 

[Pete Thomas]

I think I will move this part of the discussion to a new thread as it has gone a bit off topic from the OP. But it's an interesting discussion in its own right if it stays nice. But I'm going to have my tea first.