(CORRIDOR)

Another good one! This is very nice :) It does sound like a happy/sad crossing thing.... it would have been a bit confusing if you hadn't of told us :P

Another good one! This is very nice :) It does sound like a happy/sad crossing thing.... it would have been a bit confusing if you hadn't of told us :P

LOL, thank you 99!

Yes, Corridor has it's ups and downs. A quick travelog perhaps based on a recent life change of mine. If I hadn't told anyone maybe the listener would create his or her own picture?

Thanks again for your kind words. Much appreciated!

M

Agree with sawaddy. It's random... Like you dont know what to want...Musical chaos to me

(No offense, but reminds me of Rolifer's pieces...)

Agree with sawaddy. It's random... Like you dont know what to want...Musical chaos to me

(No offense, but reminds me of Rolifer's pieces...)

OK, listen. There is more to music; remember, it is an art. I take NO offense. Thank you for your honesty and taking the time to listen. BUT, 2 points. If you read the program notes (on website), ( or even without doing that), you will understand why it has a "random" element. 2, I can literally show you with red pen where the main theme and motif occurs and reappears in variants all through the work. This is not easy music. I am not going to feed you pap. You have to engage this work, listen and understand.

In closing, with those 2 points in mind, there really is no randomness due to the thematic echos, program notes, and having the will to actually engage and listen several times. It is an art; an illusion. I am depicting a random/chaotic time in my life through music that underneath has a very lgoical structure and smooth transition/progressions that you have to investigate to see and understand.

Again, I am not upset or offended in any way. But, this type of composition, is not so easily dismissed. It honestly takes a "maturity" on the listeners part.

Thanks!

M

You're right. But I think the composer also have to be mature for such atonal works...maybe you dont :blush::whistling:

You're right. But I think the composer also have to be mature for such atonal works...maybe you dont :blush::whistling:

Corridor is not atonal music. (lol)

I'm not trying to convince you to like Corridor.

Just simply explaining my approach; why Corridor & Harvester sound different.

Again, thank you for commenting; much appreciated.

M

OK, listen. There is more to music; remember, it is an art. I take NO offense. Thank you for your honesty and taking the time to listen. BUT, 2 points. If you read the program notes (on website), ( or even without doing that), you will understand why it has a "random" element. 2, I can literally show you with red pen where the main theme and motif occurs and reappears in variants all through the work. This is not easy music. I am not going to feed you pap. You have to engage this work, listen and understand.

In closing, with those 2 points in mind, there really is no randomness due to the thematic echos, program notes, and having the will to actually engage and listen several times. It is an art; an illusion. I am depicting a random/chaotic time in my life through music that underneath has a very lgoical structure and smooth transition/progressions that you have to investigate to see and understand.

Again, I am not upset or offended in any way. But, this type of composition, is not so easily dismissed. It honestly takes a "maturity" on the listeners part.

Thanks!

M

I appreciate your attitude and while I only mean the best, your intentions won't always be realized by the audience/performers just because you are personally aware of the compositional process while they aren't. You can't force an audience to hear something a certain way, and I wouldn't advise requiring the use of program notes in order for an audience to comprehend your intentions and whether or not they're convincing. A audience will hear a work a certain way based on the way we perceive sound and in addition to their cultural experiences. You can't just throw that all out and expect to create something meaningful.

However, I do totally agree that multiple listens are required, but usually I reserve that for works which immediately and easily suggest some sense of maturity in craftsmanship.

Unfortunately, while you have solid orchestration, your musical material wanders and is very pastiche; it sounds like you're just moving from one type of material to another. Like one big line of thread, it's all one whole, but the individual components don't mend very well. Less abstractly, it's as if one segment of music changes to another without generally being locally incoherent, but globally it has comparatively much less cohesion. Thus, it seems as if you were writing from moment to moment and in this particular case, does not make for very compelling music or listening.

Hey Exanimous,

I appreciate the response.

your intentions won't always be realized by the audience/performers just because you are personally aware of the compositional process while they aren't.

I already new that some people may not "get it".

I never stated all would; hence the program notes. But, it is probable that some would; but neither of us should speak in such sweeping generalities as if we can predict all audience responses and comprehension. However, the statement of "this sounds random/chaotic" is a basic emotional element that was communicated by Corridor originally. Most would take insult; but that's the "essence" of Corridor - rough times.

I understand your 1st point; thank you for it.

You can't force an audience to hear something a certain way, and I wouldn't advise requiring the use of program notes in order for an audience to comprehend your intentions and whether or not they're convincing.

Again, I already know that you can not force meaning/comprehension; hence the more ambiguous title and not a literal one. Corridor is open to interpretation, obviously.

Program notes are not required that is why it is not posted in the thread.

Thank you for your concern though...

A audience will hear a work a certain way based on the way we perceive sound and in addition to their cultural experiences. You can't just throw that all out and expect to create something meaningful.

Your 1st part here is more "generalities" about audiance response. I have already addressed this.

Your 2nd part, if I understand you correctly, is just bizzare. Corridor is meaningful.

"Throw all that out"

That's the point!

Hope this helps you ... moving on:

However, I do totally agree that multiple listens are required, but usually I reserve that for works which immediately and easily suggest some sense of maturity in craftsmanship.

You have a right to your opinion; I respect that. But when wrapped with disrespect I have to defend.

Right?

I won't repeat my last post in length but this composition does require a more mature listener. The craftsmanship is architecturally and purposeful "tricky" do to the artistic statement Corridor is communicating.

Unfortunately, while you have solid orchestration, your musical material wanders and is very pastiche; it sounds like you're just moving from one type of material to another.

True, but not true.

Well, with only one listen it may seem that way. With a more in depth approach to Corridor you will perceive much more.

There are parts.

Is that troubling you?

Each part or "travel-log" is adhered by the main themes.

But you have to find them.

But, again, I obviously disagree with you, you knew I would, but I respect your opinion.

Thank you for it.

Like one big line of thread, it's all one whole, but the individual components don't mend very well. Less abstractly, it's as if one segment of music changes to another without generally being locally incoherent, but globally it has comparatively much less cohesion. Thus, it seems as if you were writing from moment to moment and in this particular case, does not make for very compelling music or listening.

To you it may not. To others it does. Again, you use sweeping generalizations for points. This comes off as vigorously arrogant.

Isn't life moment by moment with themes intertwined?

I believe you may not "like" this form.

Again, I thank you for your opinion, but for every "minus" you give as evidence, I can find a post with a "plus" to rebuttal.

In conclusion,

Look, I've been around this forum for some time and this is typically what happens. I don't mind critisism but I am sure you can personally understand my rigth to defend.

SO, where do we go from here?

"tat for Tat"?

I really hope not.

It would be a waste of our time.

You'll always have fans; you'll always have critics.

I'm sure as a fellow artist you understand this.

I have heard you - And disagree with you - But I thank you for taking the time - the bump - and do respect your opinion.

M

Hey Exanimous,

I appreciate the response.

I already new that some people may not "get it".

I never stated all would; hence the program notes. But, it is probable that some would; but neither of us should speak in such sweeping generalities as if we can predict all audience responses and comprehension.

Have you studied music/sound perception? If even SOME (unless they are deaf, tone-deaf, or born with a condition in which they cannot process musical processes) people, after a few involved listens don't get it, and they have to rely on a score to get it, then the work as a piece of musical art has failed, and as expressed in writing, if done well, may succeed as an expression of writing. However, success in explaining a piece (and particularly your own perception of it) through writing does NOT justify the quality of the piece or the ability for it to be understood MUSICALLY.

However, the statement of "this sounds random/chaotic" is a basic emotional element that was communicated by Corridor originally. Most would take insult; but that's the "essence" of Corridor - rough times.

I understand your 1st point; thank you for it.

The idea is not to be random or chaotic, but to evoke that sense, wouldn't you agree? It's like writing a piece by using the note randomizer in sibelius to try to evoke the idea of "randomness." Some ideas are just poor.

Again, I already know that you can not force meaning/comprehension; hence the more ambiguous title and not a literal one. Corridor is open to interpretation, obviously.

Program notes are not required that is why it is not posted in the thread.

Thank you for your concern though...

Yet you said that it is PROBABLE that SOME will get it, therefore, this implies that it is also PROBABLE that SOME will not get it, and thus why you have the program notes. Yet you did not post them, and said they are not required. But if it is probable that some will not get it, then it's pretty much, by your reasoning, guaranteed that it is false to say that everyone will get it. Therefore it's guaranteed that EVERYONE should get a score so that everyone will have the chance to get it, either by the notes or by the music itself.

Your 1st part here is more "generalities" about audiance response. I have already addressed this.

Your 2nd part, if I understand you correctly, is just bizzare. Corridor is meaningful.

? The music? Did it make you confused? Hard to follow? Don't know what's around the next corner? Can't predict based on key, cadences, and chord progressions?

That's the point!

Hope this helps you ... moving on:

A musical composition whose point is to make itself confusing and hard to follow is a poorly composed composition, the only value it may have is to show other composers how to avoid the pitfalls of writing confusing and incoherent music. Shattering perceptual expectations, and making the piece hard to predict in a way that makes the piece interesting is GREAT, that isn't what I'm debating. If it was true I couldn't predict based on key cadences and chord progressions but what came instead made sense, then I wouldn't complain, however in this case your unpredictability often tarnishes the quality of the composition rather than enhancing it by breaking expectations in a very dull and uninteresting way.

You have a right to your opinion; I respect that. But when wrapped with disrespect I have to defend.

Right?

I won't repeat my last post in length but this composition does require a more mature listener. The craftsmanship is architecturally and purposeful "tricky" do to the artistic statement Corridor is communicating.

It's not tricky at all, it's very easy to follow for me even if your intent was to confuse or be hard to follow, at least that's not primarily the issue. The issue is that there seems to be a house constructed without a foundation, so at the end it will just collapse on itself and you have a pile of rubble, a pile which seems to be the point of the piece. If mediocrity is your intention, well-done.

What is the "artistic statement" Corridor is "communicating" and how can you "communicate" this idea if by your own accord the piece is confusing and hard to follow? I don't remember being able to communicate effectively with someone when they are "confusing and hard to follow."

True, but not true.

Well, with only one listen it may seem that way. With a more in depth approach to Corridor you will perceive much more.

There are parts.

Is that troubling you?

Each part or "travel-log" is adhered by the main themes.

But you have to find them.

But, again, I obviously disagree with you, you knew I would, but I respect your opinion.

Thank you for it.

I have perceived plenty, I've listened to it three times plus. Every time I perceived more and more incoherence, and what initially sounded interesting now sounded dull on second listening.

Opinion lies in my assessment of whether or not I "like" the piece or if it's to my "pleasure" or "taste." I don't believe I have made any such statements regarding my enjoyment of the piece. I am making critical assessments that I don't intend to be regarded as mere opinion but of attempts at objectively assessing the work in terms of craftsmanship. Of course I can't judge 100 percent objectively, but I can guarantee you that I intend most of what I said as strongly and resolutely as I know that gravity exists.

To you it may not. To others it does. Again, you use sweeping generalizations for points. This comes off as vigorously arrogant.

Isn't life moment by moment with themes intertwined?

I believe you may not "like" this form.

Again, I thank you for your opinion, but for every "minus" you give as evidence, I can find a post with a "plus" to rebuttal.

"Moment by moment with themes intertwined?" Is that REALLY what life is?

Everything unfolds LOCALLY moment by moment, but it's not just about the path, it's also where you're going and how this path relates to the destination. This piece sounds as if the path was being made without any clear direction or destination in mind. It's an improvisation, rather than a composition. Improvisation is creating local events on the fly and having them become the global form, but that the global form isn't the main idea or point of the piece. Local cohesion is more important than global coherence. Composition is about starting with details and then working out a global form based on how those details develop or do not develop (you start making a road, and deciding upon what kind of road, choose the direction it will go and the steps on the way), or starting with a global form (constructing a series of destinations and then zooming into the details/paths and how they end up and move in relation to these destinations).

In conclusion,

Look, I've been around this forum for some time and this is typically what happens. I don't mind critisism but I am sure you can personally understand my rigth to defend.

SO, where do we go from here?

"tat for Tat"?

I really hope not.

It would be a waste of our time.

You'll always have fans; you'll always have critics.

I'm sure as a fellow artist you understand this.

I have heard you - And disagree with you - But I thank you for taking the time - the bump - and do respect your opinion.

M

If you ignore the critics because you're scared they are right that's one problem, if you ignore the critics because you think it's a matter of taste, that's also a problem. A critic who reviews more positively a work primarily because it's written for an ensemble he personally prefers is not doing his job.

Hey,

Thank you for the kind words, the bump, and attention to Corridor.

I have explained my work. You want to compare intellectual dick sizes.

I see your a bit upset. So I will stop this here.

Again, and for the last time, I hear you; I disagree with you; but respect any and all mature and respectful critisism.

Be at peace my friend.

My best,

M

To be honest, I get more upset at ignorance and comments like "compare intellectual dick sizes" when my intention is clearly to ascertain the truth, rather than insult or reduce you personally in any way.

If you want to continue to compose mediocre works such as these and justify them as you have done, I wish you the best of luck in not joining the ranks of countless other composers who have had the same mindset and faded into obscurity.

While I also care about not fading, and also have the fear and insecurity that inexperience brings, at least I am open to the idea that art is not all subjective, and why certain pieces and not others are studied in schools, written about, analyzed, etc.

However frustrating it is for me to accept another's content with respect to a sort of ignorance to their craft and emotional attachment to their work to the point where it precludes development and refinement, I have no other choice but to move on and hope that one day they'll at least see part of the truth.

While I may get upset, I am honest when I say I try my best to prevent it from influencing my criticism, which, in its bluntness and admonition, may be misconstrued as hostility.

Totally agree with Exanimous. Some ideas was just poor, of course you can say that its not random not chaotic but it was miss any coherence. It didnt remind me of a corridor, it was like when a 5 year old boy plays random notes on the piano. I just wanted to say that EVERYBODY CAN WRITE SUCH PIECES EASILY. This is the easiest thing ever to write random notes without any conception. It wasnt a mediocre work anyway..it was a piece of crap. I suggest you to move on your other pieces way (Harvester).

Hey guys,

Thanks.

Sorry if we seem to disagree, but hey, that's life - right?

Thanks again for your time and effort you have been awarding Corridor; the attention is much appreciated.

At the end of the day, there is no winner; art is too subjective; personal preferences could be discussed endlessly; and leave the harmful rhetoric to the politicians.

The line between criticism and demonizing has been reached.

So, be at peace. Go write some music. Have a beer.

I'll come back later,

M

Have you studied music/sound perception? If even SOME (unless they are deaf, tone-deaf, or born with a condition in which they cannot process musical processes) people, after a few involved listens don't get it, and they have to rely on a score to get it, then the work as a piece of musical art has failed, and as expressed in writing, if done well, may succeed as an expression of writing. However, success in explaining a piece (and particularly your own perception of it) through writing does NOT justify the quality of the piece or the ability for it to be understood MUSICALLY.

Yes I have studied music and understand the perception of sound and form.

Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. Study art, painting to be exact. The transition, trends; what was once absurd is now highly priced. What was once misunderstood is now clarified and taught.

The quality of Corridor is subjective and should not be debated, measured, scored, or ranked.

To justify vs. explain pure musical architecture are two separate discussions. I was expressing the latter.

The idea is not to be random or chaotic, but to evoke that sense, wouldn't you agree? It's like writing a piece by using the note randomizer in sibelius to try to evoke the idea of "randomness." Some ideas are just poor.

Your comment about random note composing is absurd. You may perceive it as such but there is design. Please note my last few posts for more clarification on this side topic. Is Corridor a "poor idea"? Well, to you - yes. And I am comfortable with that assessment. Others feel drastically different. So who is right? No one. However, since I am the author, I will speak on the principles of Corridor, it's construction, etc., with absolute authority on the matter.

Yet you said that it is PROBABLE that SOME will get it, therefore, this implies that it is also PROBABLE that SOME will not get it, and thus why you have the program notes. Yet you did not post them, and said they are not required. But if it is probable that some will not get it, then it's pretty much, by your reasoning, guaranteed that it is false to say that everyone will get it. Therefore it's guaranteed that EVERYONE should get a score so that everyone will have the chance to get it, either by the notes or by the music itself.

Nope. Not what I said. Just what you want to hear for argue sake.

I write program notes for all my works b/c I enjoy it and it gives the listener a very brief and general glimpse into my writing. It is not a "How to Listen" document.

The choice is up to the listener. If you wish to have a score or program notes they can be given as aid if so needed. If you wish to further understand Corridor these tools can help. But you have to make the effort. This is the difference between commercial writing and personal art.

]A musical composition whose point is to make itself confusing and hard to follow is a poorly composed composition, the only value it may have is to show other composers how to avoid the pitfalls of writing confusing and incoherent music.

Your trite attempt to insult is your weakness.

Corridor's purpose is to express a point in life. Upon listening, if you became confused, it is by no means poorly composed, just a new picture in a gallery with new purpose and unique design.

Your personal attacks crate a foolish appearance to your face.

I honestly, with all my heart, can take this grotesque bombardment b/c I am an artist defending a work.

Shattering perceptual expectations, and making the piece hard to predict in a way that makes the piece interesting is GREAT, that isn't what I'm debating. If it was true I couldn't predict based on key cadences and chord progressions but what came instead made sense, then I wouldn't complain, however in this case your unpredictability often tarnishes the quality of the composition rather than enhancing it by breaking expectations in a very dull and uninteresting way.

See, now you made sense, but you forgot a fundamental element. This debate is really not about Corridor at all. It's about you. I can accept the above criticism. I obviously disagree and have many times commented why... - but, you speak in absolutes; poor etiquette, especially about art immersed in subjectivity.

I hope you do understand, that at the end of this, all you have is an opinion, based on your own personal preferences.

So, wow, we could have stopped this "back and forth" a while back when I said - "I hear you, I disagree with you, thank you for your opinion."

I honestly hope you grow from these conversations.

It's not tricky at all, it's very easy to follow for me even if your intent was to confuse or be hard to follow, at least that's not primarily the issue. The issue is that there seems to be a house constructed without a foundation, so at the end it will just collapse on itself and you have a pile of rubble, a pile which seems to be the point of the piece. If mediocrity is your intention, well-done.

No, you don't follow at all. The house analogy is a poor one. It's a narrative, a line of thought, a road traveled, where you start is not where you end up, no comfortable conclusions... If this form really bothers you this much, just simply don't listen.

And if this was anywhere near mediocre, you wouldn't be rambling on to eventually construct this full length novel about your own personal disregard for Corridor and I without full knowledge.

Again, thank you for you interest in Corridor, even if it is negative. I hear you opinion on Corridor. I'm sorry if you did not enjoy it. But I've had a discussion with it, and it's feelings are not hurt.

What is the "artistic statement" Corridor is "communicating" and how can you "communicate" this idea if by your own accord the piece is confusing and hard to follow? I don't remember being able to communicate effectively with someone when they are "confusing and hard to follow."

No, to you, it is hard to follow. Also, see program note on site. Thank you.

Again, for you it is confusing. We have established this quite well by now.

This is really no challenge.

I have perceived plenty, I've listened to it three times plus. Every time I perceived more and more incoherence, and what initially sounded interesting now sounded dull on second listening.

OK, then stop listening. We all get it. You don't like Corridor. But you have furthered your agenda. And your intellectual addiction is getting the better of you.

Opinion lies in my assessment of whether or not I "like" the piece or if it's to my "pleasure" or "taste." I don't believe I have made any such statements regarding my enjoyment of the piece. I am making critical assessments that I don't intend to be regarded as mere opinion but of attempts at objectively assessing the work in terms of craftsmanship. Of course I can't judge 100 percent objectively, but I can guarantee you that I intend most of what I said as strongly and resolutely as I know that gravity exists.

Sounds like gargling logic and philosophy here.

This is very simple.

Yes, you have made statements about your enjoyment.

Everything is based on your perception of "good" or "bad".

I will use your analogy: To judge a buildings craftsmanship by a few "drive-by"s, without concerning yourself with blueprints, history, and the architects remarks, is blatantly irresponsible, and any further blind criticism, smells of simple personal discourteousness.

And as for the "gravity" issue:

I'm sure you believe, in what you perceive, wholeheartedly, and to the end.

"Moment by moment with themes intertwined?" Is that REALLY what life is?

Neither of us can truly comment on this more; unless your omniscient or highly arrogant. But I gave you my simple opinion in the beginning.

Everything unfolds LOCALLY moment by moment, but it's not just about the path, it's also where you're going and how this path relates to the destination. This piece sounds as if the path was being made without any clear direction or destination in mind.

Do you always carry a map and foresee your true outcome in life?

It's an improvisation, rather than a composition. Improvisation is creating local events on the fly and having them become the global form, but that the global form isn't the main idea or point of the piece. Local cohesion is more important than global coherence.

Nope. It is a composition and well constructed.

There is no improvising with Corridor. It is a design with purpose.

Global coherence is achieved. Satisfaction, after the course concludes, has been experienced.

Composition is about starting with details and then working out a global form based on how those details develop or do not develop (you start making a road, and deciding upon what kind of road, choose the direction it will go and the steps on the way), or starting with a global form (constructing a series of destinations and then zooming into the details/paths and how they end up and move in relation to these destinations).

I understand your explanation of how you compose. I have constructed based on your statement in some form with previous works. I hope you understand that we can expand this simplistic approach.

If you ignore the critics because you're scared they are right that's one problem, if you ignore the critics because you think it's a matter of taste, that's also a problem. A critic who reviews more positively a work primarily because it's written for an ensemble he personally prefers is not doing his job.

Hey, come here.

No closer.

Really close.

(Does it look like I'm ignoring you?)

You say critics. I see about 2.

Corridor, music, art, life - not about "pass or fail". It's about expression. You will always, in everything you do in life, even commenting in a little YC forum, will have critics, and more importantly, be remembered.

Taste is a big subject my friend.

Your diagnosis of my problematic approach on bloviating ideologues and unwarranted and blatantly personal criticism, just to win a non-existing debate, is the epitome of your argumentative delusion.

Conclusion:

Simply,

it's not that you are unhappy about Corridor; your upset at my resolve. You, I repeat, you, have made this personal by your repetition.

You appear to be an absolutist or an elitist. You will not stop until I see things "your way". That's such an irresponsible use of your time.

You know, when you read criticism, the author has the right of choice to accept or disregard.

Do you get this?

If you do,

I believe you will stop.

If you don't,

you will pontificate once more.

Go be at peace my friend.

M

BTW, didn't you see the comment on your work I wrote recently?

I don't see quite why this piece has people rolling on the floor and frothing at the mouth. Perhaps it's the case that the motific material is so deliberately sublimated and the development so oblique that the listener has trouble grounding. It's easy to hide things so people can't find them, a lot harder to hide things so people will enjoy finding them.

Echoing a previous post: this most certainly is not atonal music - in fact, certain cadence points surprise by their conventionality. Perhaps this is why some have heard pastiche.

For my taste, some moods early on are not held onto/explored enough to give proper weight to the turbulent outbursts or shifts that follow. Rather as if you've been so impatient to give the punchline that you rushed the body of the joke (to the detriment of the punchline when it comes).

I think I see your intention with the "non-ending ending", but I'm sorry, I don't think it quite comes off.

Anyway, I enjoyed it, and I especially commend you on your orchestration.

J

I don't see quite why this piece has people rolling on the floor and frothing at the mouth. Perhaps it's the case that the motific material is so deliberately sublimated and the development so oblique that the listener has trouble grounding. It's easy to hide things so people can't find them, a lot harder to hide things so people will enjoy finding them

Correct. Hence the ulterior motive theory.

Not necessarily deliberate. Absolutely not deliberate. We have to take a moment to understand organic writing. Beyond that, themes are not "buried" but varied. And the "roots" are emotive, not notated precisely.

Your interpretation of Corridor deliberately "hiding" is incorrect. I must admit it could be viewed as such with only little exposure; fortunately, Corridor will unwrap it's gifts eventual for some or quickly for others depending on a level of maturity and focus. For a composer, that is quite enjoyable.

Echoing a previous post: this most certainly is not atonal music - in fact, certain cadence points surprise by their conventionality. Perhaps this is why some have heard pastiche.

I hear you - but disagree with the adjective used.

For my taste, some moods early on are not held onto/explored enough to give proper weight to the turbulent outbursts or shifts that follow. Rather as if you've been so impatient to give the punchline that you rushed the body of the joke (to the detriment of the punchline when it come

Your taste is not for Corridor, clearly. But, have yet described the work on a surface level successfully.

The author is not the one in a hurry. Think about it in those terms.

Usually listeners, not ready for new material, quickly seek some reference of familiarity

I think I see your intention with the "non-ending ending", but I'm sorry, I don't think it quite comes off

I apologize. I misspoke. Not quite a non ending. It's an ending. It's just a questioned result.

Anyway, I enjoyed it, and I especially commend you on your orchestration.

J

Thank you J. I am at least partially happy that you could find something within Corridor to enjoy. And also, thank you for your very well constructed criticism. I respect that and have enjoyed this discussion.

M