[HN Gopher] The Problem with Music (1993)
___________________________________________________________________
The Problem with Music (1993)
Author : brudgers
Score : 96 points
Date : 2023-04-02 14:09 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (thebaffler.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (thebaffler.com)
| somesortofsystm wrote:
| I have been making music for decades. Not professionally of
| course, but only for myself.
|
| I think in the rush for fandom we forget that it is quite
| possible to be the best musician you know.
|
| Music is one of those healing substances that will always work
| and doesn't require you to invest heavily or be addicted or sign
| a subscription. It will just heal you.
|
| The fact that this has been industrialized and indeed weaponised
| in the Western world is a bit of a travesty - but we must never
| forget that our music schools produce 4 - 5 million new musicians
| a year.
|
| This is why I say, the only rock and roll industry is the one
| where the guitars are being made and new instruments designed and
| fashioned - for us all.
|
| The idols come and go. That old synthesizer will have a lot, lot
| longer use than the CD rack ..
| 650 wrote:
| Not knowing too much about sound engineering myself, I tried
| comparing it to software engineering. At the end of the day what
| matters is your output and learning along the way. It seems the
| author has a gripe with people calling themselves producers.
|
| If someone said I can't call myself a software engineer until I
| had interned at XYZ company and understood Kubernetes, Docker,
| Typescript, AWS, Rust, etc. I would say ok and?
|
| I know there are thousands and thousands of producers and artists
| making content that isn't of the highest quality, but at the end
| of the day they are creating. Setting an unreasonable bar of
| skill is not the way forward.
| boomskats wrote:
| "The author" in this case is Steve Albini[0].
|
| [0]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Albini_discography#As_an...
| ehutch79 wrote:
| The date on the article is actually important here. Music
| recording is MUCH different then it is today, 20 years later.
|
| The best you could do for a home recording was a (comparative
| to today) shitty 4 track cassette recorder. You really needed
| some training on the equipment to know what you're doing. The
| resources just wern't there otherwise.
|
| The analogy for the worst cases here is more 'I've turned a
| computer on, so, Mr Torvalds, heres how a kernel is written'.
|
| Of course there were a few brilliant producers. There mostly
| mediocre producers who just got the job done, that you'll never
| hear about. Only the outliers, the best and worst get
| remembered.
| danieldk wrote:
| 30 years later (I started listening to a lot of music as a
| teenager around that time, including Albini-engineered music,
| realizing that that is about 30 years ago makes me feel...
| old?)
| ehutch79 wrote:
| Oh.... yeah... now i feel even older
| olddustytrail wrote:
| I had one of those last week when I was watching "Back To
| The Future" and realised that in a current remake, Marty
| McFly would be going back in time to the Olden Days of
| 1993.
| bryzaguy wrote:
| I do understand sound engineering. I think their gripe is
| people claiming they understand how to make something sound
| good with no actual knowledge of how to do it then making up
| words along the way. Imagine you have a manager tell you to
| make the site more "zazzy" with a straight face. Imagine all
| managers start doing this.
| dahart wrote:
| The issue is that producers have no bar at all for the role,
| and the role is not well defined, unlike software engineers
| that typically have a 4 year degree, 2 year degree, or at the
| very least a code camp, before being hired. Would you hire
| someone for software engineering who had no engineering
| training or experience just because they can talk lucidly and
| in detail about what software they like?
|
| Maybe a better software analogy here would be to compare
| producers to product managers. Great PMs are truly gold, but
| the PM role's technical requirements are nebulous, and there
| are plenty of PMs who don't know how to write code, and don't
| know how to craft a good product, and don't know how to
| communicate with customers effectively, essentially having no
| skills required for the job, but able to talk convincingly to
| enough of the right people to get hired and keep their jobs.
| livelielife wrote:
| > unlike software engineers that typically have a 4 year
| degree, 2 year degree...
|
| they do NOW. Back when a lot of us started getting involved
| with this, most 'engineers' had physics, engineering,
| mathematics, and other various backgrounds because software
| engineering degrees were too freaking new.
|
| In the near-future (10 5? years? possibly sooner?) kids are
| gonna graduate with specialized PM degrees having gone to
| highschool thinking about being "product manager" when they
| grow up. When I was in highscool i wanted to be a Webmaster!
| now a webmaster is 15 people between desiginers, PMs,
| backend, frontend, QA, testers, blah blah blha
| dahart wrote:
| It's a good point that things have changed a bit, but in
| 1993 when this article was written you couldn't get a web
| job based on code camps, neither really existed. There was
| no role called webmaster yet. Webmaster today is a team
| only if you're managing a large site, but not for small
| sites, and it doesn't require many specific skills for
| small sites. Like you said, most engineers had degrees of
| some sort. For the purposes of comparing to a producer job
| (which has existed in film, tv, radio, and music for ~100
| years) engineering has always had higher skill & technical
| requirements.
| somesortofsystm wrote:
| >people calling themselves producers
|
| The music industry has just as big a headache with imposter
| syndrome, the Flynn factor, and the Peter principle, as any
| other industry.
|
| The issue is that the music industry is extremely exploitative,
| while being undeniably competitive. You don't get coders going
| to the extremes that members do, for their art. (Not sure if
| that is a good or bad thing, personally.)
|
| >producers and artists making content that isn't of the highest
| quality, but at the end of the day they are creating. Setting
| an unreasonable bar of skill is not the way forward.
|
| Its not skill. Its sell-ability. It doesn't matter if you threw
| lemons at a piezo and called it done, if someone is willing to
| pay to listen to it - because it _interests_ them - then you
| 've got a hit.
|
| The ability to sell music is a very, very difficult thing to
| attain. Music is immediately free upon creation.
|
| We, of course, have imposed a great deal of arbitrary limits on
| its production and reproduction and broadcast and distribution
| over the years - but the fact we still have musicians out
| there, mind-blowingly great ones in fact, _who will never get
| discovered in their lifetimes_ is a clue: music is language.
|
| It therefore cannot and should not, ever, be limited by
| government - or its adherents - in ways which prevent the use
| of this language.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| If you're going to apply that argument you should apply it to
| everything - music, art, software, money, property of all
| kinds.
|
| But you won't, because the argument always comes to down to
| "Stuff I want should be free because I want it. Stuff that
| profits me personally should have legal and moral protections
| unless I personally have the luxury of choosing otherwise."
|
| That aside - it's skill too. Of a specific kind. Producers
| have - actually have always had - two jobs. One is the admin
| side of delivering the project on time and on budget - which
| is not as easy as it sounds when band members may be drunk,
| high, unreliable, on the verge of a personal or professional
| breakdown, or at war with each other.
|
| The other is having the taste and instinct to hit the market
| just where it wants to be hit.
|
| Taste and instinct are incredibly nebulous and hard to
| define, but music buyers know them when they hear them.
| They're the difference between a record that sounds polished
| and a record that somehow has a life of its own.
|
| With respect to Albini, having an EE degree has absolutely no
| relevance to this. If anything it will get in the way,
| because EE degrees teach you nothing about taste and
| musicality.
|
| Nor - unfortunately - does talent in the abstract. Some
| musicians are just too talented for the mainstream. In a
| saner culture we'd subsidise them - somehow - without relying
| on the middle-of-the-bell-curve markets to do something
| they're fundamentally unable to do.
| throwaway1777 wrote:
| The bar will only get lower with ai assists. Gatekeeping is
| either essential or futile depending on your perspective.
| jeffreygoesto wrote:
| Sorry, but creating and engineering are on two different axes
| IMHO. Engineering is about using math and science to achieve
| things, kind of "the way". Creating is about "the goal". You
| can create beautiful things by just trying random stuff...
|
| For me, the vast majority of software is not engineering.
| livelielife wrote:
| I agree with software not being engineering.
|
| but I disagree that engineering is just execution. I disagree
| even harder that you can create something by throwing random
| stuff,, you may well find something cool like that but I
| think creation does require more of a clear intent than
| random throwing and finding as if by chance.
| vanjajaja1 wrote:
| People conflate music with the drama that is the allure of quick
| and easy fame.
| livelielife wrote:
| they are talking about the recording industry more than about
| music; so I suppose I agree?
|
| the recording _industry_ is the problem that music has. But this
| 'problem' is not limited to music.
| someweirdperson wrote:
| > the recording industry is the problem that music has. But
| this 'problem' is not limited to music.
|
| In most other industries the individual isn't part of the
| product, but replaceable a lot more easily.
| vrglvrglvrgl wrote:
| [dead]
| hippich wrote:
| I wonder how these calculations changed with the rise of
| production using computers, especially for electronic music,
| where even a studio is likely not a hard requirement anymore?
|
| I am sure also a lot changed with the rise of various streaming
| platforms and services allowing to distribute your music to these
| easily.
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| Many (most?) new prominent acts get their start in their
| bedrooms with SoundCloud. It's beautiful.
|
| I don't think there's ever even a case where they _have_ to go
| through the industry ringer. They can just keep cleaning up
| using self promotion and Spotify royalties.
|
| Of course if they want to tour, that changes the equation a
| bit.
| bombolo wrote:
| Radio is still a thing, and studios decide what goes on
| there.
| brandall10 wrote:
| Olivia Rodrigo was launched into the stratosphere by TikTok
| - yes with label support.
|
| Billie Eilish I think came by way of Soundcloud, no?
|
| Can't imagine radio, being a means of discoverability, as
| more than a minor factor in this current era of Spotify.
| mikeryan wrote:
| Is it though?
|
| I grew up in the Bay Area listening to "Live 105" the local
| Alt-Rock station. It doesn't even exist anymore. There's
| maybe one station on the dial that caters to a demographic
| younger then 40.
|
| I'm not sure radio is still relevant for anyone under the
| age of 30.
| [deleted]
| bombolo wrote:
| > Is it though?
|
| Yes.
|
| > I'm not sure radio is still relevant for anyone under
| the age of 30.
|
| Maybe you don't drive? If you drive and you get tired of
| listening and re-listening the stuff you have on your
| phone... radio it is.
| te_chris wrote:
| Internet radio is real and thriving. I listen to NTS all
| the time, e.g.
| mb7733 wrote:
| I can't imagine radio is relevant at all to an up and
| coming musician at this point.
| bombolo wrote:
| Exactly my point. But it's relevant to listeners :)
| okareaman wrote:
| The beauty with the internet and now AI is that it greatly
| reduces the power of and need for gatekeepers who take most of
| the profit
| atoav wrote:
| Sure. I as a musician that practised for years to play the
| right note in the right way the right moment will truly
| appreciate it when the unique style I developed with my band
| over years of work and sweat will be cloned in mere seconds by
| a multi-national corporation and their AI. Or it could be a 13
| year old teenager that has the AI create music in the style of
| someone else.
|
| Not that I am against sampling and remixing, but I have yet to
| see that AI based cloning of music can truly become an artform
| with it's own merits like sampling has become -- or whether it
| will destroy the filaments of reality to such a degree music
| will have to become something entirely different than it is
| now.
|
| What I am sure of, is that those who have power today will find
| ways to hold that power tomorrow.
| okareaman wrote:
| There will be two groups of people: those who figure out how
| to use AI to their benefit and those who don't
| atoav wrote:
| And those who figure it out and still won't benefit,
| because bigger entites do what bigger entites always did
| when technological promises loomed at the horizon.
| teolandon wrote:
| You are not the authority on what counts as an "artform of
| its own".
|
| I agree with your last statement though.
| atoav wrote:
| I am the authority of what counts as an artform of its own
| -- to myself. I mean I also have a MA in arts, so I know
| about art forms, but I didn't attempt to represent an
| authority here. So I am sorry if you perceived I was acting
| as an "authority" when in fect I was speaking a out my very
| own perspective and nothing more.
| bombolo wrote:
| Bullshit.
|
| You can't run your own AI, so the AI is gatekept.
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| In exchange for a deafening level of noise.
|
| One of the things those recording engineers used to battle was
| a high noise floor in the signal. AI lowers that signal<>noise
| ratio (applying the analogy to producing music or "content").
|
| The issue isn't the barrier of entry in terms of skill or
| technical expertise, it's malicious and greedy business
| practices. And tech is ripe with that in all new ways of its
| own. Institutionalized, codified psychopathy is on trial here.
| NeuroCoder wrote:
| Just by virtue of how the human brain transducers auditory
| signals versus visual signals there is a big disparity in being
| able to automate music production. We fill in many gaps for
| vision but to a much smaller degree for music. There's a lot
| less room for AI to fudge the difference between human and
| generative model derived music.
|
| It will be interesting to see how this all plays out as I'm
| sure AI will found some use in music that has broad application
| and influence. But it will take a lot longer than generating
| pictures
| simoneau wrote:
| See also "Courtney Love does the math" (2000) for a similar
| analysis of the music industry:
|
| https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/
| UberFly wrote:
| That was a good read, thanks. I'd like to know how the last 20
| yrs have effected things and if musicians are still getting
| just as screwed. Sadly I'm guessing yes.
| [deleted]
| georgeecollins wrote:
| Here is something that may be of use. When someone sends you or
| hands you a contract, read it. If they hand you a contract and
| expect you to sign it on the spot either ask to look at it
| overnight or sit down and read it in the spot. Anyone who expects
| you to sign something without reading it should feel shady.
|
| Read it with a pen in hand. You are allowed to change things in a
| contract. People often give you things as pdfs or paper with the
| implication that you shouldn't make any changes. If you don't
| understand something in the contract you may just want to cross
| it out.
|
| It's true that many contracts are take it or leave it deals, but
| you never know until you try. And you want to know where you
| stand. Also the back and forth leads to a lot of clarification.
| Always be very polite.
|
| Get your own copy of the signed document.
|
| All of this applies to employment offers, leases, work for hire,
| etc. IANAL
| slaymaker1907 wrote:
| From what I read in the article, you need to also avoid signing
| anything that says you'll sign something else later (why in the
| world is that kind of contract legal?).
| lisper wrote:
| Your question makes a mistaken assumption about contracts.
| Contracts are not "legal" or "illegal", they are "binding" or
| "non-binding". And a contract that stipulates that you will
| sign something else later is generally non-binding. The
| people who ask you to sign such contracts are counting on you
| not knowing that.
|
| There are several criteria that a contract needs to meet in
| order to be binding. Interestingly, being written down and
| signed is not one of them. Verbal contracts can be binding.
| The reason for writing them down and signing them is to avoid
| he-said-she-said type arguments if there is a dispute.
|
| One of the criteria for a legally binding contract is that
| there has to be an actual "meeting of the minds", i.e. that
| the two parties have to _actually agree_ on what their
| obligations under the contract actually are. An obligation to
| sign some unspecified thing in the future does not meet that
| criterion because you don 't know what you are agreeing to.
|
| (For this reason, a ToS "contract" which allows one party to
| change the terms unilaterally cannot be binding. You have to
| be given the opportunity to reject the changes.)
|
| But most people don't know these things, and so they allow
| themselves to be manipulated by charlatans who do.
|
| Disclaimer: IANAL. But I've signed a lot of contracts, some
| of which I shouldn't have.
| freedomben wrote:
| > _Verbal contracts can be binding._
|
| Yes this is true, although most jurisdictions impose fairly
| low upper limits on the amount of consideration that a
| verbal contract can cover. As of 2012 the most common value
| was $500 or less (and probably is still the same level or
| close to it in most areas). Anything involving
| consideration valued at more than $500 USD was not binding
| unless written.
| Kranar wrote:
| Contracts absolutely can be legal or illegal.
| Binding/unbinding contracts are a related but separate
| concept.
|
| A legal contract is a contract whose terms do not violate
| the law or public policy and whose terms are enforceable. A
| binding contract is legal contract that has been signed by
| all parties involved. It is perfectly valid to question
| whether a contract is legal or illegal, regardless of
| whether that contract is binding.
| lisper wrote:
| "Legal", "enforceable", and "binding" are all more or
| less synonyms in this context. Yes, it's true that a
| "legal" contract is a thing, but it's really just a
| synonym for "enforceable", which is really just a synonym
| for "binding". None of these things mean the same thing
| as "legal" in the sense that it is, say, "not legal" to
| rob a bank. There is nothing illegal _under contract law_
| in signing a contract to rob a bank. Such a contract is
| not binding /enforceable/legal but there would be no
| legal repercussions _under contract law_ if you signed
| such a contract. If you robbed the bank you 'd be charged
| with bank robbery, and if you didn't rob the bank you
| could be charged with conspiracy. But under no
| circumstances could you be charged with a contract
| violation (which is always a civil matter anyway, not a
| criminal one).
|
| > A binding contract is legal contract that has been
| signed by all parties involved.
|
| That is just flat-out false. Verbal contracts can be
| (legally) binding and hence enforceable. It's not common
| because of the practical difficulties of ascertaining
| what the terms of a verbal contract actually are or were,
| but it's not unheard of.
| Kranar wrote:
| I think you're way out of your league here if you're
| saying that there is nothing illegal under contract law
| to sign a contract to rob a bank. Not to mention that
| you've now gone from trying to be pedantic about the fact
| that there's no such thing as a legal contract, to now
| saying that it's actually just a synonym for binding
| contract. If all you cared about was the overall
| intention and meaning instead of trying to get into the
| nitty gritty, there'd have never been a point in you
| posting to begin with.
|
| With that said, if you're under that impression then I'm
| afraid there's likely not much of a point in discussing
| this further with you and you're welcome to continue
| believing what you like.
| lisper wrote:
| > I think you're way out of your league here if you're
| saying that there is nothing illegal under contract law
| to sign a contract to rob a bank.
|
| Could be. Like I said at the beginning, IANAL. But if you
| are any less out of your league than I am, it would be
| pretty easy for you to cite the specific provision of
| contract law that would make it illegal, and how it would
| be prosecuted. Would it be a criminal offense? Felony or
| misdemeanor? Or would it be a civil suit? Who would be
| the plaintiff? Under what provision of contract law would
| they sue? What would be the actual damages?
|
| At worst, signing a contract to rob a bank _might_ be
| evidence of a conspiracy [1] but conspiracy is not part
| of _contract_ law. Merely signing such a contract in and
| of itself is not an illegal act. I could sign such a
| contract, for example, as part of an April Fools joke and
| that would be perfectly legal _even if_ the contract that
| I signed were drawn up by a lawyer and was prima facie
| valid and enforceable.
|
| ---
|
| [1] https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/inchoate-
| crimes/con...
| [deleted]
| AlbertCory wrote:
| > That's why few self-respecting engineers will allow themselves
| to be called "producers."
|
| btw, HN'ers, I'm preparing a new Substack post about "music
| movies you haven't seen" and one of the ones I saw when it came
| out was _about a recording engineer_! Imagine that. I think Tom
| Dowd is the only engineer anyone would make a movie about.
|
| It's _Tom Dowd and the Language of Music_ and now I can 't find
| it anywhere. Can you?
| kodt wrote:
| I found it on a community specializing in out of print media.
| I'll see if I can get a copy.
| [deleted]
| kencausey wrote:
| This is the cheapest copy I could find in 30 seconds:
| https://www.ebay.com/itm/155484714542?epid=30902174
| AlbertCory wrote:
| Thanks. Yeah, I don't need to _own_ it; just watch it again.
| No Amazon Prime, no Netflix, no Kanopy.
| omar_alt wrote:
| I wonder what would be a good Steve Albini type plugin to get one
| of those increasingly rare young bands to sound like they had
| just recorded Rid of Me or Surfer Rosa? ;)
| Applejinx wrote:
| Soothe into OTT. Clearly.
|
| ;)
| throwaway743 wrote:
| Oooo or Atomizer
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| The irony of this is that a lot of the sound engineering stuff
| isn't a thing anymore for recorded music - the producers won. If
| you mic properly and choose a space with the right acoustics you
| can achieve almost anything with walkthrough GUIs using a DAW and
| some plugins.
| still_grokking wrote:
| Now I'm confused.
|
| Isn't the "DAW and some plugins" part actually the core of
| sound engineering nowadays?
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| They are, but the engineering aspect is greatly diminished,
| which is why these days in music everybody is a producer and
| audio engineers are more likely to work events or film/tv.
| PUSH_AX wrote:
| Mics? Chances are (unless you're a vocalist) you can either DI
| straight into a plugin or use a VSTi to just midi program a
| sampled version of your instrument both performed and
| engineered to a higher standard than you can reach.
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| While I've certainly done everything in software, there are a
| lot of genres (such as metal) where micing is a part of the
| sound. If you listen to metalcore vs a lot of metal, you can
| hear it.
| PUSH_AX wrote:
| I would disagree on that, as a hobbyist metal guitarist
| myself, software like Neural DSP, Bogren etc has made such
| strides in amp modelling that you can get the same sounds
| in the box. There are a number of releases I've heard where
| you simply cannot tell the difference, arguably nor should
| you bother trying, they sound fantastic.
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| I own a copy of bias fx, but I still feel that the
| nuances of mic positioning and acoustics can give an
| organic feel easily, much like how good musicians swing
| beats in an aesthetic way that beat swing plugins don't
| quite live up to in most cases.
| ironman1478 wrote:
| A lot of amp modeling software allows you to place the
| mic virtually in different positions because it affects
| the sound. I think when using a Kemper to profile an amp,
| it models the microphone + amplifier
| progrus wrote:
| The cabinet and speaker are also modeled, and in some
| ways those are more important than the amp:
|
| https://youtu.be/-eeC1XyZxYs
| motohagiography wrote:
| Now do startups. But seriously, while I have not got to
| investment stage, I have been in shitty bands in the early 90s
| where I know the names of the people in the article, had partners
| in the model-acting-whatever game, written as a freelancer and
| lived with authors and publishing people, and then also worked on
| hopeful startup products for myself and others, and even
| sometimes help VCs choose decks from the slop pile. It's the
| _exact_ same grind across all those industries.
|
| Reality is, you are either money side, or talent side, and there
| is almost nothing in between, other than the "judas goat" roles
| of the A&R guy, writing course adjunct, model scout, VC
| associate, where you get a job bringing talent into the funnel.
|
| If you thought your dev job was different, your recruiter is
| probably getting compensated with 20-30% of your first year's
| salary if you persist in the job for 6mos, and if you are in the
| contracting game without negotiation skills or leverage, the
| company you work for is paying anywhere from 20% to 100% premium
| to your agency where you do work, an they did their work.
|
| Around the time of this article in my late teens or early 20s I
| was sitting beside a pool at the vast country estate of a friends
| very wealthy parents, and I asked him, "How do I get this?" He
| told me something along the lines of "the reason you don't make
| any money is because you want money for what it gets you, like
| freedom, approval, acknowledgement of your talent, status,
| appreciation, and maybe some nicer versions of what you need to
| live. You don't actually want money, you don't make it for its
| own sake, and you don't use it or manage it to make more of it,
| you use it for these other things." I responded, "Of course, why
| would I want to be a slave to making money? What an empty life. I
| don't want to be some douche bag bridge and tunnel tourist
| working at a bank." He said, "If you want this, you need to only
| want that. You don't get this from what money gets."
|
| The lecture didn't land at all. I was always a bit of a punk ass.
| I went on to do some really interesting stuff, where decades
| later I make a passable living having done some interesting and
| even legendary things I get to dine out on the stories from, but
| while I don't have many regrets, I am conscious of the attitude
| in this article and how it plays out. If you want money, make
| money. if you want something else, own that. Thinking you're
| going to be wealthy from your talent and efforts is practically
| the definition of magical thinking. Money is made by managing it,
| which means getting some, leveraging and investing it and
| extracting value from the risk and growth.
|
| There's nothing wrong with not being wealthy, I do it very well,
| but attributing our ignorance about money to injustice, as a way
| to protect our magical thinking about the untested value of our
| talent, is to be stuck in a kind of adolescence.
| tptacek wrote:
| producer : music :: architect : software.
| ChancyChance wrote:
| I first read this article in the book "Commodify Your Dissent",
| which is a collection of phenomenally accurate critiques of
| post-80's culture
|
| https://store.thebaffler.com/products/commodify-your-dissent
| analog31 wrote:
| >>>> Especially "Punchy" and "Warm." Every time I hear those
| words, I want to throttle somebody.
|
| I've seen this first-hand. I'm a bassist. When you ask any
| bassist about their sound, they all say that they want it to be
| "punchy." Every bass, amplifier, and speaker is described as
| "punchy." If not, it doesn't even make it to the market.
|
| Protip: To overcome any problem with your sound, turn the volume
| up a bit. This is also a known trick in the studio, and the
| equipment showroom: Make a few arbitrary adjustments, then play
| it back again, but with the volume turned up.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-02 23:00 UTC)