Humanizing Music or Computerizing People?

Acoustic guitar= good *
Sampled acoustic=not so good
Acoustic mandolin=good *
Sampled mandolin=not so good
Electric guitar=good *
Sampled electric guitar=not so good

everything else I have is sampled so it's all good from this point on.......









* it took hours upon hours of practice over weeks and months and years to achieve this level of performance quality


but it's worth it!

I will use MIDI only for that which I cannot in any way whatsoever do otherwise, which currently is mostly just drums. I use BFD and play it with a ZenDrum, so I can get pretty reaslistic results. But I'll ditch is as soon as I can do the real thing.

There is also the issue of ones opinion effecting others- as I pointed out
in a thread...

I personally had/have no problem using EZDrummer and such for the learining
process.
When my recording partner wanted to make CD's to sell...then it mattered.
Many of my reasons against it were and are for many of the same reasons Danny
mentioned.

Of course the solution is just to replace the parts but my point is- if one is working
with a partner it may be best for both to be on the same page when using such methods.

At the end of the day Rus, it all comes down to personal preference really without there being a right or wrong. The right or wrong that DOES exist will be artist specific. I still think genre's come into play on certain things because impact is what makes a genre stick out. Layering fake with real and vice versa isn't really the issue as we're talking about one or the other per your question, aren't we? Unless I'm totally missing the meaning of the question? I prefer the real stuff due to putting in the time to play the instruments I play...but in certain situations, I feel the fake stuff is more appropriate.

The other side of the coin is what is less time consuming and more feasible. I have a killer drum kit here all mic'd up and ready to go. It sounds great just the way it is. I also have midi triggers on the kit as a safety net and sometimes will mute out the real drums for the midi I've captured for certain things. When I don't feel like messing with all that goes on with my real kit, it's pretty easy to fire up my V Drums kit and have all the options there. The sounds and sample modules for drums are so impressive, it's easy to make them so close only a trained ear *might* be able to tell.

I'd rather play my midi keyboard over my real piano. Why? Way more options available as well as sequencing abilities. I'd rather use a fake violin than a real one. Why? Because I don't have Scottytunes at my disposal lol and I can't play fiddle to save my life. And...I have a wide array of fiddles to choose from in my sampling libraries that sound real enough to me. That said, with brass...I play those instruments and just love the sound of real recorded brass. It's worth it to me to play my trumpet in real time over using a sample because it's just something I enjoy.

So to me, though my personal preference is to always keep things as real as possible...in certain situations, it may not be the best decision. It all depends on your vision. However, I do think it is of the utmost importance to make fake sounding instruments sound like they were at least performed from a real perspective. In saying that, I mean instrument velocities and over-quantizing. There is nothing worse than hearing fake instruments that do not have the right velocity control or have quantized section so tight, it sounds like a robot jumped into the tune. I can deal with them without a problem when someone goes through the trouble to give them the love and care they need. Without good velocities etc, I can't even listen to anything that's fake sounding. But that's just me. :)

-Danny

Danny Danzi


At the end of the day Rus, it all comes down to personal preference really without there being a right or wrong. The right or wrong that DOES exist will be artist specific. I still think genre's come into play on certain things because impact is what makes a genre stick out. Layering fake with real and vice versa isn't really the issue as we're talking about one or the other per your question, aren't we? Unless I'm totally missing the meaning of the question? I prefer the real stuff due to putting in the time to play the instruments I play...but in certain situations, I feel the fake stuff is more appropriate.

The other side of the coin is what is less time consuming and more feasible. I have a killer drum kit here all mic'd up and ready to go. It sounds great just the way it is. I also have midi triggers on the kit as a safety net and sometimes will mute out the real drums for the midi I've captured for certain things. When I don't feel like messing with all that goes on with my real kit, it's pretty easy to fire up my V Drums kit and have all the options there. The sounds and sample modules for drums are so impressive, it's easy to make them so close only a trained ear *might* be able to tell.

I'd rather play my midi keyboard over my real piano. Why? Way more options available as well as sequencing abilities. I'd rather use a fake violin than a real one. Why? Because I don't have Scottytunes at my disposal lol and I can't play fiddle to save my life. And...I have a wide array of fiddles to choose from in my sampling libraries that sound real enough to me. That said, with brass...I play those instruments and just love the sound of real recorded brass. It's worth it to me to play my trumpet in real time over using a sample because it's just something I enjoy.

So to me, though my personal preference is to always keep things as real as possible...in certain situations, it may not be the best decision. It all depends on your vision. However, I do think it is of the utmost importance to make fake sounding instruments sound like they were at least performed from a real perspective. In saying that, I mean instrument velocities and over-quantizing. There is nothing worse than hearing fake instruments that do not have the right velocity control or have quantized section so tight, it sounds like a robot jumped into the tune. I can deal with them without a problem when someone goes through the trouble to give them the love and care they need. Without good velocities etc, I can't even listen to anything that's fake sounding. But that's just me. :)

-Danny

No, we weren't discussing that. I just thought it was something to bring to the table as well because I've heard questions being asked about coloring a sound. Recording a real solo string or group or strings with sampled ones has a particular sound quality which may sound better or not depending on the ear or ears listening. As I've said before, you don't wanna make the layering obvious! If that is what you choose to do.


And yes, the issue of dynamics! I got that same critique when I uploaded Blossoms on another forum and am using automation in both a steep and gradual manner. However, making an instrument sound real vs the composition are two totally different things. My questions weren't asking about composition/composing. That's why I said in another forum not to stress trying to make the sequence sound real because it'll sound real when it's played live anyway.


I know the drummer won't hit the snare/kick/hi hat the same way every time; however, no matter how real I try to make it so in the composition, it probably still won't sound like I heard it when I wrote it! As I said though. That's dealing with composition - not the individual sounds that make it up. (Real/Sampled instruments) Or the other way to make tracks real. Avoiding constant play (This is of course if something else isn't there to distract you from the repetition (ie: lyrics) Hard/Soft automation (for me) helps as you keep everything on the table. This is what I'm doing to "perform" Blossoms and my other tracks realistically. All of this is again composition though and not sounds/instruments.


Now, score wise, I'll indicate it or employ it upon listening for live practice for such to be played, but in terms of just writing as if a human was playing it? I needn't really do that as all that stuff will come later as again, I may not hear what I wrote verbatum.


Going back to sounds though: sure when played live, the actual strings will sound different than my interpretation of them sounding "real" inside the recording; however, if the real ones played along the "lucid" ones (not, but made to sound as such), they may sound worse on par or even better. Again, enhancing - not replacing 

It does come down to personal preference - especially if what's heard sounds like lots of nurturing went into it!

Sometimes I can get stuck with all the sampled choices available to me but then come at it from another angle; for example
I might be working on a piece and think a string section or some woodwinds would work really well, but no matter how hard I try, it just won't
seem to fit. I've done that more than once, then deleted it all and started 'colouring in' the ideas that I had using subtle synth pads or solo voices.

Sometimes that gets a far better result set against electric guitars (for example) than sampled 'real' instruments. It's all about building textures.

Russ.... now I'm just confused..... so I think I'll go and tune up the guitar and record some real muzik.

Guitarhacker


Russ.... now I'm just confused..... so I think I'll go and tune up the guitar and record some real muzik.

Really, Herb?


Seriously, I do think that where the separation stems from where one does one over the other. Then, get confused when asked about blurring the lines a bit. Granted, the question I asked seems like it's "black and white," it's actually gray! Many don't look at it that way though.


If computerizing a human (auto-tune) is undesirable, then it is quite possible that humanizing music (a dynamic sequence) is undesirable as well. So, what if you put the two together? It's not necessarily good, but not necessarily bad either. It depends on how one looks at it.


The performers who read "spots" vs. those who hear "blips and bloops." It's not unlikely the both groups have done both at some point regardless of efficiency.


Believe it or not, composers do both - even if they do one or the other.

I would prefer not to have genres based on how the sounds originated.  The aim should always be to place each sound, clip or phrase within the song arrangement, such that, after a bit of tweaking, it sounds like it belongs there.  Whether it was recorded, programmed or generated should not be an issue for the listener.  If you hear a piece of music and you can't say for certain which bits are midi, then the producer has done a good job.

What was the question again?

Well, the 'real' music will be the music that has mistakes, that isn't perfectl in time and perfectly in tune, almost always. All these tools are being used to create an inhuman expectation of what music is. It's been so gridded and tuned and timed and replaced and automated that it has nothing to do with real human performance. Even well recorded and fairly produced music not that long ago had real human mistakes and character to it.
 
But these days, if you post something real, it will be seen by many people as the same as 'amateur', because 'pro' music is completely data processed until it has no flaws, and therefore not so much human character. I post my real stuff, that I can actually perform, and I know to a lot of people it sounds 'icky' because it's not perfectly in tune or perfectly gridded.
 

Rus W


I guess I'm just peeved with the niche/separation issue. Real = good; Fake = bad! Generalization, but it's pretty much the recorded/live music thing at least very similar to it. 

So, yeah, if you can blend the two; however, there still may be a few who can make the distinction no matter how gray you try to make it. If so, either you made it too obvious or they have a really wonderful set of ears!

I still think it's about being genre specific as well as a person's knowledge of a specific genre. For example, when some joker that doesn't have a clue about dance or rap posts "your instruments sound fake" you chalk that up as an individual that should think before he speaks. That's like a guy that listens to classical music commenting on a rock tune while saying "your guitar sounds distorted". Well, it's supposed to be! Dance, rap, some pop have fake instruments...they are supposed to have those sounds and people have pretty much accepted them.
 
A punk song is going to have a more abrasive, distorted guitar than a pop rock song. A modern rock song is going to have more of a punchy drum sound than a classic rock song of the 70's. Pop and dance vocals are going to be more processed with effects than a modern rock song. Jazz is always going to be "do whatever you want, use whatever instrument you want, but make it good."
 
And sometimes, we're stuck with what we're stuck with resource wise. Some guys don't have super real sounding instruments and they use what they have. There are no rules with any of this, but the sound selections you make pretty much dictate your style or even an era based on those sounds. We can't run from them and we can't deny them.
 
If I use a warm drum kit that uses a room to make it big sounding, a low end less percussive bass guitar and a moderate drive guitar (drive, not gain/distortion) I'm going to sound like Led Zep or something classic rock. If I use auto-tune in moderation to where it gives me an effect, the first thing *I* think is that Cher song. If I use it exclusively to where it buries the sound of my real voice, I think T Pain.
 
If I use any sound that is remotely close to a sound that has been used with a popular band, it gives me an identity that I can't run from. Whether it be fake or real, this is all people have to compare to unless I come up with something totally ground-breaking and original. At the end of the day, fake stuff works just as well as real stuff when done the right way in the right situation. However, in certain styles of music...it gives less impact or may give more impact in an area where it shouldn't.
 
For example, if we have a guy writing rock tunes using a synthetic drum kit, he's gonna get some flack for that because rock drums drive a song and if they are fake, it could accentuate the drive for the song in the wrong way. There was a song posted on the song forum by one of our top guys a few months back. The song was awesome, the mix was great, the instruments were all top notch, but he over-used auto-tune and quite a few of us asked him why. The guy sings great...what made him make that decision? But quite a few of us mentioned it to where he said "ok ok, I'll redo it without it." We love the guy so it doesn't matter what he does...he's one of those guys that can just do no wrong. But when you CAN sing well and have a great tune going on, and this fake voice comes in that sort of depreciates the tune a bit, this is when people are going to mention it. For this particular genre that this guy does, I didn't think it was the right decision. However, that's not my call to say that but I felt I had to tell him my thoughts and so did a few others.

It's all going to be subjective no matter how we look at this stuff...but I still think it's awesome to have the best of all worlds no matter what side of the fence you're on. Good discussion Rus! :)
 
-Danny

droddey


I do have to kind of push back on the whole 'as long as the listener doesn't know the difference' aspects of these types of discussions. I don't think that's all that's involved. What about the respect of one's peers? If a Tom Cruise movie came out and he went around acting like he did all the stunts when he didn't, he would be smacked down in a split second. But why would it matter if the viewer doesn't know the difference? Because it's a matter of honesty and respect.

Clearly the movies are often vastly more 'artificial' than music, but they are up front about how they make the sausage, and in fact take pride in how well they can do it. But in music, no one does this, and the reason they don't is because they KNOW it's dishonest when it's pawned off as real performance, and that they wouldn't get as much respect for it. No albums come out with a list of all of the ways in which the performance was improved artificially, and I don't mean enhanced as in reverb, delay, compression, I mean improved to sound like a better performance. That, to me, makes it obvious that everyone REALLY knows that it's not just about whether the listener can tell the difference or not, that they do worry about the respect of their peers and that they know that the tricks being played reduce the respect they are due relative to someone who can really do it.

Do you know why because that is TC acting ridiculous! IA that there's no need to brag as that will knock you down or even off the respect totem pole really fast!


However, you're saying to me that every time I put up a piece I need to put up a disclaimer (which I do sometimes) - even though I and most people already know this? I wrote this, but I apologize for I know it sounds fake because it's from a computer. That's being honest, but rhetorical and stupid, too.


As to the last sentence, the "fooling the ear" aspect is used - not so much as to deceive people, but to make them hear or feel things that thought they wouldn't. Doubling a bass and throwing a twinge of drive/distortion on it. Can a bass/guitar get distorted sans any kind of processing (that's what all those knobs do on amps)? No! The only way this is possible is something blew and you just kept playing. (That's how "fuzz" was conceived.)


Yet, again, most don't care how something was made as long as it sounds good - no matter what tricks one uses and that is why such tricks are used.


How'd you get the sound to die down gradually? I just moved the fader (or applied automation). That's a given, but isn't that "dishonest" when everybody should just turn down the instruments (no need to automate the individual/master faders)? In the case of fade ins and outs, it's more a matter of convenience.

Sure, all performance players have to do is follow markings, but what if nothing has come before their eyes yet? That's where you then need those tricks, so at least the ears know what to do - especially if the eyes aren't used again after one viewing. They'll mentally know that a decrescendo/crescendo will be placed here/there and how long the marking will be - even before the eyes ever see it! (PBE/SR isn't the point).

It's not really necessary for me to put up a disclaimer every time I put something up because by the time you hear the second song, you should know where all my music comes from. Just because I don't say anything about it's instrument make up (this came from the guitar I bought years ago or this is a patch I use very often) is not being dishonest. The reason we don't say this is because it's unnecessary unless someone really want to know what you did and how you did it. It's like with the movies and composers often tell you how they went about writing the music. Yet, they still don't tell you every minute detail. Why even point that out? Let them give you a PDF spreadsheet, but that still may not tell you everything!

Now, if you're going for a midi-mockup that translates to a live performance or a reading session, you still wouldn't need to say: "Strings, this is what I want you to do. (Btw, I boosted the bottom a bit because you sound too thin!)" I'd probably get a few bows to the face or more likely up my behind! 

However, if I go to the harp and say: "You're gonna need a companion or two because odds are you won't be loud enough to be heard." and then go tell the piano to go sit with the harp or perhaps her sister (another harp). I still wouldn't say: "I compressed or limited the harp so it would sound louder." (not necessarily cranking the volume of the track). She didn't ask about her placement/prominence or how it was achieved in the sequence. More than likely, she was going to tell me what I already told her in the first sentence.

Yes, I'm very meticulous and detailed which is something of absolute in composition/production to make something sound better. There's nothing in this about being dishonest. If so, then MEs and all associates are in the wrong profession - especially them; however, they don't care about the instrumentation or arrangement either. They may tell you to tweak it some as it would be nice to help them out; however, mastering is their job, not yours which is why they suggest you leave that part of it alone unless you really know what you're doing!

So, I'll ask again, what constitutes a better performance whether it's real or simulated because even human players use tricks - a better word be techniques - to improve performance. 

Strings have the pizzicato technique, but I bet there are many other techniques within that one to get a particular sound (the "better performance" in this case) when plucking them. But wait! They "lied" because I thought they could only use the bow (and there are many ways to use the bow as well other than what one is familiar with)

It's no more necessarily for that player to tell you what or why they did it unless you ask him or her than it is for the composer/arranger to tell you what the instrumentation looks/sounds like and what what done to achieve it (For performance, yes, but that isn't the point)

What is necessary is that hopefully what you have done is presented well; however, the presentation (ears other than your own) shouldn't dictate how much one's heart was in it whether it's real or artificial or lucid!

Rus W


What is necessary is that hopefully what you have done is presented well; however, the presentation (ears other than your own) shouldn't dictate how much one's heart was in it whether it's real or artificial or lucid!

None of that was really related to what I was saying. There is ENHANCING a good performance, i.e. giving it more interesting SONICs, and there is changing a less than good performance to make it sound like it was PLAYED better than it really was. There's nothing wrong with enhancing performances. It's been going on forever. Cave people could have done it by recording in a naturally reverberant rocky area. Addition of reverb, delay, chorus, panning, etc... is all just enhancing the sonic of a performance, but the performance still has to be there or those things will not make it a good performance.
 
That's not the same as fixing the time, fixing the pitch, replacing the sounds with pre-recorded sounds, spending days doing automation at a very fine level (i.e. not remotely anything like fading out an outro), using automated tools to line up background vocals with main vocals, spending hours automating a vocal to be exactly just so above the music, and so forth.
 
If you do the later, IMO, you don't deserve the respect that someone who can do it without those things does, period. It's not a long distance from there to lip syncing. It may not make any difference to Joe Blow, but if you want respect in the industry and from your peers, then you shoudln't get as much, because you don't deserve as much.
 
And if you do all those things, but put out the music as through it were actually performed by you, when you can't actually do it, that's dishonest, IMO. It's just as bad as an actor claiming he did his own stunts when he didn't, or claiming he played the instruments when actually a studio musician did.
 
Respect is earned, not edited in.
 
And, BTW, it has nothing to do with MIDI really. If you use a MIDI driven instrument, and you never edit the MIDI in any way, that's not really different from having just recorded the audio, and it does let you chose a new sound later. But you still had to PLAY it, with the right timing, the right pitch, and the right dynamics. But of course the reason so many people use MIDI is so that they casn make it sound like they are better than they are. And that doesn't deserve the same amount of respect as someone who can really do it.
 
And that's not an elitist attitude, it's because respect is EARNED, by putting in the hard work to develop the skill.
 

droddey

Rus W


What is necessary is that hopefully what you have done is presented well; however, the presentation (ears other than your own) shouldn't dictate how much one's heart was in it whether it's real or artificial or lucid!

None of that was really related to what I was saying. There is ENHANCING a good performance, i.e. giving it more interesting SONICs, and there is changing a less than good performance to make it sound like it was PLAYED better than it really was. There's nothing wrong with enhancing performances. It's been going on forever. Cave people could have done it by recording in a naturally reverberant rocky area. Addition of reverb, delay, chorus, panning, etc... is all just enhancing the sonic of a performance, but the performance still has to be there or those things will not make it a good performance.
 
That's not the same as fixing the time, fixing the pitch, replacing the sounds with pre-recorded sounds, spending days doing automation at a very fine level (i.e. not remotely anything like fading out an outro), using automated tools to line up background vocals with main vocals, spending hours automating a vocal to be exactly just so above the music, and so forth.
 
If you do the later, IMO, you don't deserve the respect that someone who can do it without those things does, period. It's not a long distance from there to lip syncing. It may not make any difference to Joe Blow, but if you want respect in the industry and from your peers, then you shoudln't get as much, because you don't deserve as much.
 
And if you do all those things, but put out the music as through it were actually performed by you, when you can't actually do it, that's dishonest, IMO. It's just as bad as an actor claiming he did his own stunts when he didn't, or claiming he played the instruments when actually a studio musician did.
 
Respect is earned, not edited in.
 
And, BTW, it has nothing to do with MIDI really. If you use a MIDI driven instrument, and you never edit the MIDI in any way, that's not really different from having just recorded the audio, and it does let you chose a new sound later. But you still had to PLAY it, with the right timing, the right pitch, and the right dynamics. But of course the reason so many people use MIDI is so that they casn make it sound like they are better than they are. And that doesn't deserve the same amount of respect as someone who can really do it.
 
And that's not an elitist attitude, it's because respect is EARNED, by putting in the hard work to develop the skill.
 

Yeah, I agree, but also I think most who compose via MIDI (and that includes the pros) have this idea that live play should sound exactly like it. That'll be great if it does, but that is quite a lofty expectation; however, anybody in the orchestra will tell you that will must absolutely play what is written in front of you - especially if they recorded it in the studio that same way. You could still just listen to the recording. I realize that is the general rule compared to modern stuff.


However, composing takes some skill, too, and not everybody composes or wants to compose like Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, etc whom obviously didn't have access to what we have access to now. I'm not looking to get the same kind of respect those guys got because I'm not them. I might arrange a piece of theirs to make it mine, but I shouldn't earn very little respect because it's not up to par with what they did!


That is exactly what you seem to be saying with your post! I'm less of a performer/composer because I really don't do this unless I put a pencil to paper or play the instruments practicing the parts I plan to write for - especially if I don't have access to them! 


So, again, I don't compose because I click a mouse button nor do I practice because I loop sections? I shouldn't garner any respect because this is how I do things? Composing takes skill as well as performing, but it's nothing unless I can compose an entire suite? Interesting how that is not an "elitist" attitude! 

Classical music is better than modern because it's pleasant, simple, but much more sophisticated than what's out there today." That's probably why nobody likes it who likes the modern stuff or vice-versa.

I do get what you're saying though, but why should it matter how the product was made? I may not get respect because my songs come from speakers, but what's permeating from them? What sounds? How was it organized? What's he trying to say here? Those same questions would be asked if this were a live player. He/She just has the added bonus of "Wow! Look at this person go!" Again, I don't get hung up on humans playing what's in the speakers. (That bass line is too syncopated! A human could never do that!) If I did, what's heard would lose it's identity (the syncopation is what gives it such) than THAT is where I'd lose respect - not because that same suite you saw on the page, came from house speakers. Why should what's heard mean any less than what's seen or garner any less respect? I'm still writing/playing music no matter how I choose to do it.


Nowhere have I said that it's not okay to actually compose traditionally or practice/play real instruments. I'm saying that you shouldn't garner less respect because you don't do it! You might be better at performance while I'm better at composition - we're on the same level being that we like music in some way. I may not like what you played or how you played or you may not like what I wrote or how it was written, but no need to throw each other off the respect totem pole!

I don't know Dean....what do you say about a guy like Jason Becker who has ALS so bad he writes music on a computer using his eyes? Does he get less respect due to the sounds and methods in which he composes or more respect for his desire due to disability, or his ability to have created an eye blink system? See, it's a catch 22. Some guys just do the computerized music thing good. I don't have less respect for a guy that doesn't physically play something.

Take for example, a guy like Philip. He has this incredible knack for using loops as well as combining some real time instruments. His music to me, is fabulous because of how he mixes so much in the pot. He mentions how he'd rather have my bass and guitar playing in his tunes, (thanks Philip!) however my contributions to his material don't (in my opinion) make it better than when he uses a synth bass and a keyboard guitar. My instruments make them "different". Better will always be in the ears of the beholder. For example, we have architects that can use CAD really well but some of them may not be incredible builders. Do you have less respect for the guy that created the model/concept on the computer than the guy that actually builds? To me, we need both. I respect the CAD guy for the concept and creation as much as the guy who builds the physical. Both are art forms that deliver the goods...but they do them differently. This is what Rus is trying to get at.

Why do people have less respect for those that still create music that may not play an instrument? To me, enjoying a piece of music is enjoying a piece of music. I try to leave my personal bias out of it because the moment I do that, I am no longer enjoying the art and am involving myself into the material. However, there are times when (like I said in my other posts) I do not feel synthetic instrumentation may be the right decision for something. Even if it's played and presented well, it can affect the impact on a certain style/genre of music.

Here's a prime example of what I'm talking about. What are your thoughts about this mp3?

http://www.prominy.com/demo/SC/Another_World.mp3

Would you believe that's a keyboard playing all those guitars? If I didn't tell you, could you really tell enough to where it bothered you? As much as I'm a guitar player and absolutely hate midi guitar of any kind, I'd be lying to you if I said THIS was not acceptable. I think most rock guitarists I know would kill to have these tones and play like this.

Now, when you see it in like this video http://www.prominy.com/demo/SC/video/Underwater_World.html it sort of makes it sound a bit more fake because we see it's jnot a guitar. However, this keyboard player had to think like a guitar player and sort of play like one in his own way. This is an art form whether we consider it fake or not. So how do you not respect something like this? I find it mind-blowing. Even some of those guys that are finger drummers. They make due with what they have, ya know? Music is music to me...as long as it's something I enjoy. I do have slight pet peeves about certain types of fake instruments for certain things, but I've never not respected someone for how they choose to create music. At the end of the day, creating music shouldn't be about being true to others or being accepted by peers....you create for you first and foremost. You are the only one that needs to be satisfied at the end of the day.

-Danny