Prince says the Internet is "over"

[landtuna]

The public has a right to enjoy music, and they shouldn't be forced to pay $16 for a CD when less than a dollar goes to the artist.

I don't know whether the public has a right to enjoy music. I'd say the artist has a right to pursue his/her career as a musician and the public can opt to pay the musician for their music....or not listen. Nobody is forced to buy CD's.

Mandating a payment schedule for music CD's smacks of wage and price controls which have never worked in the nation's favor any time they've been tried. The artist can negotiate their payments just as a baseball player can negotiate his salary. If one label won't pay the desired amount then go next door. Last time I looked there were literally hundreds of labels.

 

[TheBigA]

I don't know whether the public has a right to enjoy music. I'd say the artist has a right to pursue his/her career as a musician and the public can opt to pay the musician for their music....or not listen. Nobody is forced to buy CD's.

Who's buying CDs? Read this thread. People aren't buying CDs, but they're listening to lots of music.
Music has lost it's "property" advantage because of the internet. It's not behind a pay wall, and there are few consequences for taking it. When the public gets used to getting something for free, they interpret it as a right.

 

[landtuna]

Who's buying CDs? Read this thread. People aren't buying CDs, but they're listening to lots of music.
Music has lost it's "property" advantage because of the internet. It's not behind a pay wall, and there are few consequences for taking it. When the public gets used to getting something for free, they interpret it as a right.

OK, now I'm really confused. Just a couple of posts ago you said "Look at what's selling". Selling infers buying. Are we talking about actually paying for music or just listening to it?

My earlier post stated that pop music isn't selling because it is of low intellectual quality. I still think that is true. People undervalue it because it isn't worth what they would have to pay for it. I still think that is true. "Quality" music, classical, standards, new age, jazz etc. doesn't seem to have the same enormous problem as pop because its customers value it and are willing to pay for it. That and the "quality" artists don't usually come off as TMZ clowns.

 

[TheBigA]

OK, now I'm really confused. Just a couple of posts ago you said "Look at what's selling".

These are two different issues.

You say nobody's forced to buy CDs. I say that's why they're stealing.

You say people would buy if quality was higher. I have no reason to believe that's true.

My earlier post stated that pop music isn't selling because it is of low intellectual quality.

But pop music IS selling. Comparatively speaking. Take a look at the chart. It's not like there isn't high intellectual content available. It's simply not attracting buyers, because for the most part people don't listen to music to stimulate their brain. And you're not going to turn fans of Taylor Swift into highbrow music fans. That's not going to happen.

People undervalue it because it isn't worth what they would have to pay for it.

No, they undervalue it because they have the option of getting it for free. But it also isn't worth $16. Nothing is, regardless of intellectual quality. And if I can get Saxophone Colossus for free, why would I spend $16 for it?

 

[landtuna]

You say nobody's forced to buy CDs. I say that's why they're stealing.

Nope. They're stealing because they're cheap SOB's. And probably because today's pop will become tomorrow forgotten trash and they don't want to "invest" as earlier generations did.

You say people would buy if quality was higher. I have no reason to believe that's true.

Maybe.....maybe not. I buy music that I want to keep forever. I assume there are others like me out there. Whether that includes the mental midgets of the current teen/20-somethings I don't know. We're never likely to find out though because cheap sensationalism has replaced quality in pop music and it won't return in my lifetime. Too many quick bucks to be made duping the masses.

But pop music IS selling. Comparatively speaking. Take a look at the chart. It's not like there isn't high intellectual content available. It's simply not attracting buyers, because for the most part people don't listen to music to stimulate their brain. And you're not going to turn fans of Taylor Swift into highbrow music fans. That's not going to happen.

Listen to artists and labels constantly complaining that sales are down. Something is selling but not at the rate it once did.

And I disagree vehemently that "high intellectual content" is available in pop music. 98% of every female's recording sounds so similar they are almost ripping each other off. And there isn't anything on the male side worth listening to....they're all over on the hip-hop or rap side. Hip-hop is today's disco and rap isn't close to being actual music.

No, they undervalue it because they have the option of getting it for free. But it also isn't worth $16. Nothing is, regardless of intellectual quality. And if I can get Saxophone Colossus for free, why would I spend $16 for it?

If people are not willing to buy a product to support its creator or performer then they are bigger idiots than I already consider them. As I said before, I buy music I want to keep and play on a good audio system and enjoy for years to come. Today's pop crap deserves to be compressed into junk and played on a cheap pair of earphones. It sure won't be being played 40-50 years from now like the pop music of my youth.

 

[TheBigA]

And probably because today's pop will become tomorrow forgotten trash and they don't want to "invest" as earlier generations did.

They don't want to "invest" because there is no benefit in ownership as there once was. It's just a file. Once again, it has nothing to do with quality of the music.

Maybe.....maybe not. I buy music that I want to keep forever. I assume there are others like me out there.

Sure, and they make up about 6% of the population.

98% of every female's recording sounds so similar they are almost ripping each other off.

You’re looking at the tip of the iceberg. If you’re going to be a musical snob, you need to look beyond the obvious. Otherwise you’re no smarter than the people you criticize.

If you look beyond the popular, then you’ll see there’s lots of quality music. But people still steal it. Because they can.

If people are not willing to buy a product to support its creator or performer then they are bigger idiots than I already consider them.

Their view is YOU’RE an idiot because you spend money you don’t have to spend. The music you want is available for free. You choose to spend money. That’s your choice. But that doesn’t make you any smarter than anyone else. And it doesn’t make your music any better than anyone else’s. It's just music. It's all just notes on paper, ones and zeros in a computer, or grooves on a disc. Just because you like it doesn't mean others will feel the same way about it. It's all personal taste.

 

[Starbucks]

The recording industry took a decline ...even though profits were still up by the end of the 80's when the CD became dominant....the 45 became commercially obsolete, and the vinyl LP as well went with it. Then all you had was the CD ....as well as cassettes till the mid 90's when that tanked....the industry took advantage of the customers by number 1. Charging 5.00 for a CD single.
2. Charging 18.99 plus for CD album. The 45 vinyl cost till it's demise, 1.50 average, and the LP 13.99 avg.
Let alone the product starting with the MC Hammer era....you had to pay almost 20.00 a CD for 1-3 decent crappy songs, and yes the quality of the rest was poor, whether it was Rock, Pop, or R&B.
The CD 5.00 single was expensive , but what you got was one hit song, plus an acoustic version, techno version, an ethnic, a satanic version etc. whatever...nobody was going to pay 5.00 when all we wanted was just the hit version. Then the record clubs (BMG and Columbia) came along and started giving great deals to join and by 1996, that's when I replaced all cassettes and vinyl for all the CD' s and even box sets for three times less then what Tower and the others were selling for. Even the Cicuit City and Best Buys were great for compilations, and then what took the music industry down commercially , was the used CD stores like around here Rasputin, Streetlight etc... you found steals compared to paying 18.99.
Today ....what makes a hit single....is based more on airplay and how many plays on the radio, then what sells.... At least when it comes to chart success and becoming one day a golden oldie. But many hit songs have become disposable during the millenium years, and if there played again as a retro feature, half the radio listeners wouldn't remember them. Example .....Susan Boyle...CD sold great...but can you or the average listener or Disc Jockey name one tune or hit single off of there???. Sales mean nothing to the public or radio...just airplay and concerts mean more to the public. The rest is free.

 

[Jay Peninger]

Who's buying CDs? Read this thread. People aren't buying CDs, but they're listening to lots of music.
Music has lost it's "property" advantage because of the internet. It's not behind a pay wall, and there are few consequences for taking it. When the public gets used to getting something for free, they interpret it as a right.

OK, now I'm really confused. Just a couple of posts ago you said "Look at what's selling". Selling infers buying. Are we talking about actually paying for music or just listening to it?

My earlier post stated that pop music isn't selling because it is of low intellectual quality. I still think that is true. People undervalue it because it isn't worth what they would have to pay for it. I still think that is true. "Quality" music, classical, standards, new age, jazz etc. doesn't seem to have the same enormous problem as pop because its customers value it and are willing to pay for it. That and the "quality" artists don't usually come off as TMZ clowns.

Classical, Jazz, etc. doesn't have the problem because nobody was buying it in the first place and I suspect even fewer are stealing it via the Internet... Its hard to impact something when its not selling in the first place... Pop, rock, and yes even country music sales are down drastically because people are spending their money on other things and visiting The Pirate Bay at night to download the music for free... The genie is out of the bottle and the record labels can't put it back no matter how hard they try.

The whole music industry is headed for a wholesale change in the next five years, digital media and downloading music is going to be the rule, not the exception to it. But unless they get a handle on piracy even digital media will suffer fractional sales.

 

[landtuna]

They don't want to "invest" because there is no benefit in ownership as there once was. It's just a file. Once again, it has nothing to do with quality of the music.

The benefit is owning a song that provides enjoyment when you play it. Yesterday it was a record. Today it is a file on a computer or mobile device. And if you own it you can play it anytime you want. You don't have to wait for some PD to put it on a playlist or hope that some radio station in your market supports your preferred genre. Ownership hasn't changed. The media has.

Sure, and they make up about 6% of the population.

So you're telling me that 6% of pop music listeners support 100% of artists and related support activities. I don't buy it. Prices for recorded pop music have not increased by anywhere near the amount necessary for that relationship to work.

You’re looking at the tip of the iceberg. If you’re going to be a musical snob, you need to look beyond the obvious. Otherwise you’re no smarter than the people you criticize.

Tip of what iceberg? And what is a musical snob? If I said I prefer classical music to pop because rich people like classical and idiot teens like pop I guess you'd be correct in calling me a musical snob. But that is not what I said.

If you look beyond the popular, then you’ll see there’s lots of quality music. But people still steal it. Because they can.

I am talking only about pop music here since that seems to be the genre in most trouble regarding illicit file sharing.

Their view is YOU’RE an idiot because you spend money you don’t have to spend. The music you want is available for free. You choose to spend money. That’s your choice. But that doesn’t make you any smarter than anyone else. And it doesn’t make your music any better than anyone else’s. It's just music. It's all just notes on paper, ones and zeros in a computer, or grooves on a disc. Just because you like it doesn't mean others will feel the same way about it. It's all personal taste.

I can't change what people think but the fact is I worked hard over a long career to add value to my profession and was rewarded pretty good for it. I have much more money than I need to live comfortably, something the youngsters may not, and I choose to spend it according to the laws of economics, something the youngsters don't seem to understand. If succeeding generations don't reset their expectations regarding the "free lunch" there will be very little in our society worth anything - personal tastes notwithstanding.

If I think an artist is worth supporting I will buy his/her music. That's how they make their living and assuming I want to keep hearing their stuff they need to keep creating. Apparently the pop music freakazoids today do not consider the music or the artists worth keeping if they refuse to support them.

And, once again, I am not talking about personal tastes here when I criticize pop music. I am talking about the diversity (lack of), originality (lack of), sameness of (most of), lack of musical complexity (most of) and presentation (90% video, 10% musical). I did not like disco as a genre but will readily admit there was a lot of creativity in what was basically a one-thump dance beat. Considering the technologies available to artists today music should be better by geometric proportions but most of it is just.....crap. And that's not only my opinion but that of millions who don't listen to pop music radio or buy recordings.

 

[TheBigA]

The benefit is owning a song that provides enjoyment when you play it. Yesterday it was a record. Today it is a file on a computer or mobile device. And if you own it you can play it anytime you want.

But you don't have to buy it to obtain any of those benefits. That's the point of this thread.

So you're telling me that 6% of pop music listeners support 100% of artists and related support activities.

No, I'm saying 6% of the population is like you. That's the statement I was responding to.

And what is a musical snob?

A musical snob is someone who makes judgements about other people based on their music or music habits. If you read this thread, that's the obvious conclusion. You believe your music is better than others, and your behavior with regards to music is better than others. Thus, you're a musical snob. And for someone who makes a lot of pronouncements about music quality, you don't know much about the broad range of music that exists beyond your closed universe. Too bad. Because there's a lot of music out there you've never heard.

 

[Jay Peninger]

And what is a musical snob?

A musical snob is someone who makes judgements about other people based on their music or music habits. If you read this thread, that's the obvious conclusion. You believe your music is better than others, and your behavior with regards to music is better than others. Thus, you're a musical snob. And for someone who makes a lot of pronouncements about music quality, you don't know much about the broad range of music that exists beyond your closed universe. Too bad. Because there's a lot of music out there you've never heard.

Amen brother.... My station is Active Rock, because that is what my personal taste leans towards, but my music collection is vast and covers many genres because there are songs in all genres that for whatever reason seem to be timeless and always put a smile on this ugly mug... For anyone to judge a specific genre or generation of artist is snobbery at it's finest, and as bad as you might think pop music might be in this modern world of ours, I would be willing to bet you 40 years from now should I be lucky enough to live into my 80's somebody will be enjoying "Oops I didn't Again" on the Oldies Hologram Channel.....

 

[landtuna]

But you don't have to buy it to obtain any of those benefits. That's the point of this thread.

If you are content with a compressed POS recording then I agree but for those of us who value the full range of whatever music we're listening to then I disagree. AFAIK it is very difficult to find original uncompressed pop music on pirate sites.

No, I'm saying 6% of the population is like you. That's the statement I was responding to.

I'm pretty sure you said 6% of "me" are buying, instead of stealing, pop music.

A musical snob is someone who makes judgements about other people based on their music or music habits. If you read this thread, that's the obvious conclusion. You believe your music is better than others, and your behavior with regards to music is better than others. Thus, you're a musical snob. And for someone who makes a lot of pronouncements about music quality, you don't know much about the broad range of music that exists beyond your closed universe. Too bad. Because there's a lot of music out there you've never heard.

I made no judgments based on their music taste. I made judgments based on their music stealing. And I criticized "their" music on the four points already posted, not on their musical tastes. I don't think today's pop is crummy because I don't like it but rather because it is musically inferior to the obviously great music produced in the past. Advertisers tend to support that same opinion judged by the number of ads containing pop songs from the 50-70's era compared to the "Jump My Junk" flotsam being spewed today.

I have listened to a great universe of music and have, in addition to my Oldies, a pretty fair collection of New Age, Jazz, Easy Listening, Swing and Classical stuff. Although I don't consider myself a musicologist I think my musical universe is wider than the average non-industry person.

 

[TheBigA]

I don't think today's pop is crummy because I don't like it but rather because it is musically inferior to the obviously great music produced in the past.

That right there is what I was talking about. Based on what criteria? Personal taste. You're suffering from "old man disease." I hear it all the time. "Back when I was your age....."

Advertisers tend to support that same opinion judged by the number of ads containing pop songs from the 50-70's era compared to the "Jump My Junk" flotsam being spewed today.

That has nothing to do with it. Older songs are being pitched by song publishers to advertisers for this purpose, mainly to attract new income for those songs.

Don't confuse the use of older songs with them supporting your opinion. It's all about money. If they're aiming at older folks, they use older songs. But there are an equal number of ads with rap and current pop, including my current fave for Kia with the hampsters riding in toasters to the music of The Black Sheep.

 

[landtuna]

That right there is what I was talking about. Based on what criteria? Personal taste. You're suffering from "old man disease." I hear it all the time. "Back when I was your age....."

You continue to ignore plain English. Let me try one more time:

I am not criticizing based on personal taste (note what I said about Disco some posts back) but rather lack of diversity and creativity.

That has nothing to do with it. Older songs are being pitched by song publishers to advertisers for this purpose, mainly to attract new income for those songs.

You completely missed my point. I was not talking about song publishers but rather general advertisers, particularly on TV, who are selling cars and other such items to all ages of people. 9/10ths of the songs present in these ads are from the Classic Hits/Rock era.

Don't confuse the use of older songs with them supporting your opinion. It's all about money. If they're aiming at older folks, they use older songs.

If that were true I would expect to hear Sinatra or Como advertising Buicks but not so.

But there are an equal number of ads with rap and current pop, including my current fave for Kia with the hampsters riding in toasters to the music of The Black Sheep.

I'm going to have to start writing down the songs I hear in connection with TV ads but I disagree that the comparison is anywhere equal (although I do agree that the Kia ad is cute and catchy although neither the Kia nor the song would entice me to buy either and thank goodness the ad is short - the repetition would drive me crazy if I had to listen to the whole thing.).

Using rap to advertise anything outside the rap "community" seems an act of self-destruction.

 

[TheBigA]

I am not criticizing based on personal taste (note what I said about Disco some posts back) but rather lack of diversity and creativity.

But that statement is still based on your personal taste, not any unbiased musicological basis. And it also comes from your own limited experience of music, not hearing music that isn't available via the mainstream.

You completely missed my point. I was not talking about song publishers but rather general advertisers, particularly on TV, who are selling cars and other such items to all ages of people. 9/10ths of the songs present in these ads are from the Classic Hits/Rock era.

And you missed my point, in that it's not because of the "quality" of those songs, but because they appeal to the target buyer. Look: I do this for a living. This is not a hobby to me.

If that were true I would expect to hear Sinatra or Como advertising Buicks but not so.

The audience for Sinatra and Como are 80 and above. They don't buy a lot of cars.

 

[landtuna]

But that statement is still based on your personal taste, not any unbiased musicological basis. And it also comes from your own limited experience of music, not hearing music that isn't available via the mainstream.

I've tried to describe the breadth of my music listening experience but still you address my so-called "biases". Not true.

I don't know how to restate what I have already stated multiple times so you will "get it" so I quit.

And you missed my point, in that it's not because of the "quality" of those songs, but because they appeal to the target buyer. Look: I do this for a living. This is not a hobby to me.

People on this board claim those oldies would be unfamiliar to the younger set - hence they would not like them (if played on the radio). It follows therefore, if trying to attract the below-40 crowd, they would not attract the target demo either....but they continue to be used. There must be a reason. Perhaps it is because those oldies are generally "happy music" and attract rather than offend. That may be all you need to understand "quality".

Most of the songs in question are in the neighborhood of 40 years old, some a bit more. That would make the advertisers target demo at least 50 and probably older. I'm pretty sure vehicle ads directed at the minivan and econobox buyers would be directed at people younger than that (hence the toaster hamsters set to a hip-hop beat).

The audience for Sinatra and Como are 80 and above. They don't buy a lot of cars.

Swing and a miss. Sinatra and Como were both seen as "cool" characters. Whether you or I enjoyed their music is only part of the ad attraction. They would illustrate a persona that the advertiser wants to associate with the product. But maybe this was a bad example since both are gone. I'm sure you see my drift though. Next time I'll be sure to use the /sarcasm icon.

 

[Jay Peninger]

Landtuna I have no idea what you are basing your opinion on about diversity in music but I have the Billboard Top 100 for every year from 1950 - Present and if you listen to the early years its all the same Bubble Gum & Poodle Skirt Rock and everyone was following the same formula...

You listen to that tail end of that collection you have Artists from half a dozen genres represented and the music is as diverse as it gets...

They call it popular music for a reason, lots of people just like me and you want to listen to it... And as I said before 40 years from now some guy is going to saying he can't believe the flavor of today isn't as good as that music of 2010, Justin Timberlake and Diddy were so creative way back in the day... Its all relative man and you are fighting an argument you can't win because for every person you find that last the music of yesteryear I can find 2 that will say todays music is better...

Its all taste man and very subjective.... And when it comes to advertising its all about who is buying your product, why do you think Nascar uses Rock? Because they already have the country fans hooked, they want to appeal to a new set of fans... Computer companies like Microsoft use Classic Rock and older stuff because they want to appeal to an audience who are not typically computer users, they don't have to sell kids PC's they are born with cell phones & MP3 players in their hands already...

 

[landtuna]

Landtuna I have no idea what you are basing your opinion on about diversity in music but I have the Billboard Top 100 for every year from 1950 - Present and if you listen to the early years its all the same Bubble Gum & Poodle Skirt Rock and everyone was following the same formula...

You listen to that tail end of that collection you have Artists from half a dozen genres represented and the music is as diverse as it gets...

I disagree. Listen to pop music from '55-'60 and tell me just what artists sounded alike? Holly, Fats, Ricky, the various Doo Wopsters - even individual artists and groups branched out into multiple music forms. Much variation in style even in formulaic radio singles.

Now listen to pop music today. As I stated before, every female singer sounds so alike you can't tell 'em apart without a score card. Their arrangements are boringly simple and alike as well. Much the same goes for the males.

FYI - Bubble Gum didn't arrive until the 60's and Poodle Skirts were long gone by then.

Its all relative man and you are fighting an argument you can't win because for every person you find that last the music of yesteryear I can find 2 that will say todays music is better...

(a) I'm not fighting an argument. It is my opinion and nobody yet has presented an opinion that makes me want to change mine. (b) I don't care how many people like today's garbage over yesterday's classics. Just as I don't care whether you listen to highly compressed crap on your MP3 player or on my high-dollar stereo.

Its all taste man and very subjective....

If we were discussing taste in music then I would agree with you but we are not. Take a gander at the previous posts between myself and Big A to review what the discussion was supposed to be about.

And when it comes to advertising its all about who is buying your product, why do you think Nascar uses Rock? Because they already have the country fans hooked, they want to appeal to a new set of fans...

NASCAR uses Metal bumper noise and Country stars. Noise to build excitement. Country to address its root fans. I have yet to hear a complete song on any NASCAR ad or at trackside that isn't Country. BTW....in case you haven't noticed....NASCAR is losing some of the fans it already has and isn't attracting many new ones, younger or not.

Computer companies like Microsoft use Classic Rock and older stuff because they want to appeal to an audience who are not typically computer users, they don't have to sell kids PC's they are born with cell phones & MP3 players in their hands already...

The two oldest people in my extended family are both in their late 80's and both are computer literate and spend significant time online. And no, I didn't get them there. There may be a segment of our oldsters that never get online but that probably has much more to do with economics than anything else and I doubt these people would be the demo target of Microsoft or any other computer maker.

Ad makers select their background music to put the target in a happy, comfortable, familiar and receptive mood and to associate those feelings with their product and hopefully entice them not to hit the off button. That's is why you will never see rap used to promote anything but rap concerts.

 

[TheBigA]

I've tried to describe the breadth of my music listening experience but still you address my so-called "biases". Not true.

Because I can see from what you've said that my "listening experience" is much broader then yours, therefore I'm more qualified to provide expert criticism of music without a personal bias. You're not. All you can say is you don't like their music, nor their behavior. Big deal. You have a nose, and so do they.

Most of the songs in question are in the neighborhood of 40 years old, some a bit more. That would make the advertisers target demo at least 50 and probably older. I'm pretty sure vehicle ads directed at the minivan and econobox buyers would be directed at people younger than that (hence the toaster hamsters set to a hip-hop beat).

Thirty years ago, Sinatra was used to target the 50+ set. Now they use The Beatles. Same approach, different music. They're not selling pimple cream and sneakers with music from the 60s. They are not using 40 year old music to sell products to people in their 20s. A day will come when all the music of the 60s will be as familiar as Benny Goodman. It will all fade away like sand castles.

 

[Starbucks]

One of the things about oldies to the younger set...is that there not exposed like we were. When our Top 40 stations back then was carrying the whole load playing everything currents back to 1955....we learned and was exposed to the music before we were born. Especially on the Million dollar weekends. We learned fast were it came from.
Todays hit music station plays nothing older then Fergie's Big Girls Don't Cry, (if they play that still) and the adult Hot AC doesn't feature anyting older then Journey's "Don't Stop Believing".
Today's kid who listens to Jay Z and Eminem..... has no idea who Graham Master Flash or Whodini is.
Especially with 10 million terrestrial and Internet stations......Older music will fade as like the big band era.And faster.

But that statement is still based on your personal taste, not any unbiased musicological basis. And it also comes from your own limited experience of music, not hearing music that isn't available via the mainstream.

I've tried to describe the breadth of my music listening experience but still you address my so-called "biases". Not true.

I don't know how to restate what I have already stated multiple times so you will "get it" so I quit.

And you missed my point, in that it's not because of the "quality" of those songs, but because they appeal to the target buyer. Look: I do this for a living. This is not a hobby to me.

People on this board claim those oldies would be unfamiliar to the younger set - hence they would not like them (if played on the radio). It follows therefore, if trying to attract the below-40 crowd, they would not attract the target demo either....but they continue to be used. There must be a reason. Perhaps it is because those oldies are generally "happy music" and attract rather than offend. That may be all you need to understand "quality".

Most of the songs in question are in the neighborhood of 40 years old, some a bit more. That would make the advertisers target demo at least 50 and probably older. I'm pretty sure vehicle ads directed at the minivan and econobox buyers would be directed at people younger than that (hence the toaster hamsters set to a hip-hop beat).

The audience for Sinatra and Como are 80 and above. They don't buy a lot of cars.

Swing and a miss. Sinatra and Como were both seen as "cool" characters. Whether you or I enjoyed their music is only part of the ad attraction. They would illustrate a persona that the advertiser wants to associate with the product. But maybe this was a bad example since both are gone. I'm sure you see my drift though. Next time I'll be sure to use the /sarcasm icon.