A Discussion About Tonal and Atonal Music

If they believed any differently, they would write music with a pitch center.

The fact that one chooses to write music without a definitive pitch centre doesn't mean that one has the ideology that music as a whole should not have a pitch centre. As much as a composer can write music without any Jazz elements without having to think "music should not have Jazz elements". Or as much as one can write exclusively for the piano without having to think "music should be only for piano".

Well if you don't want comments on the stuff you say, don't post it.

No, its not the comments that bother me really. It's the fact that you have people like yourself on here who everytime something is said that you don't agree with you jump out and argue till your blue in the face OR until the other person just loses the desire to even participate in this forum. I've seen this so many times - to myself and to others. You are very arrogant in your own personal views on music that you fail to see any other POSSIBLE idea - hence why I don't want comments from you. Its just not worth arguing with someone like yourself.

Oh so you're basically saying now that everyone who writes music that has no tonal implications does it for the exact same reasons. Is that it? The LACK of something can't be something in of itself, and the reasons behind that lack of something can be extremely diverse. That there were a groups of people that documented their particular reasons for doing what they did, sure! Does it mean anything for everyone else? Not necessarily.

No, that is not what I meant. And you know that. What I meant was, a composer just doesn't sit and write a piece of music without any thought given to the construction of the music, etc. Whether he/she does so atonally, tonally, etc; there is a full line of thought (or at least should) behind every facet of the composition. These vary from composer to composer based. In my statement, I took the two separate things reasons for composition and the reasons for composing atonality and purposefully blurred the two together. Sure, there are reasons why one would want to write atonally. Those reasons i'm more than securely confident can be quantified, measured, etc. An architect doesn't just draw up a plan for a structure and say the reason they did it the way they did was because it was all random, do they? Absolutely not, and its ludicrous to even say that that is the case. The same is with music, the means at which the composer arrived at his/her own choices in composition are not random at all. (Even those who utilize alleatoric technique to compose do so with a plan in place from the start.)

Atonality itself is not well defined enough as a term (it's even questionable if it's relevant at all as a music category considering the diversity of music that have to fit under that banner.) How can you possibly claim it's an ideology in any general or universal way, again?

Atonality is very relevant as a musical category. And you are the first person EVER to say that its relevancy is even questionable (after 15 years of being involved in music and meeting a LOT of composers, musicians, historians, etc. - that is shocking to me.) And yes, its constituents are an ideology - in the strictest definition of the term.

Ideology

The fact that one chooses to write music without a definitive pitch centre doesn't mean that one has the ideology that music as a whole should not have a pitch centre. As much as a composer can write music without any Jazz elements without having to think "music should not have Jazz elements". Or as much as one can write exclusively for the piano without having to think "music should be only for piano".

Of the select group of academics out there who I believe advocate an ideology formed around Atonality as opposed to merely supporting it as one of many different valid approaches to music, none of them seem to agree that contemporary music within the artistic music community overall should have a tonal center. It makes perfect sense to understand it as you do, Gardner. I wholeheartedly agree with you that it makes no sense. But it's the whole modernist dogma from the 60s and 70s that SSC addressed earlier in his response.

It's an ideology in the context in which it is used, and for folks who believe as some academics do that tonal centers have no place in contemporary music, it's ideological rhetoric - not sound music principle in the way you describe it.

Well if you don't want comments on the stuff you say, don't post it.

No, its not the comments that bother me really. It's the fact that you have people like yourself on here who everytime something is said that you don't agree with you jump out and argue till your blue in the face OR until the other person just loses the desire to even participate in this forum. I've seen this so many times - to myself and to others. You are very arrogant in your own personal views on music that you fail to see any other POSSIBLE idea - hence why I don't want comments from you. Its just not worth arguing with someone like yourself.

Yeah, this frustrates me as well, especially considering the walls of text that form over and over again as a result.

Sometimes a good course of action is simply not to respond to comments you don't feel are appropriately addressing your position.

You are very arrogant in your own personal views on music that you fail to see any other POSSIBLE idea - hence why I don't want comments from you. Its just not worth arguing with someone like yourself.

Aw, gonna cry about it? What do you think a discussion forum is for anyway?

Atonality is very relevant as a musical category. And you are the first person EVER to say that its relevancy is even questionable (after 15 years of being involved in music and meeting a LOT of composers, musicians, historians, etc. - that is shocking to me.)

Oh really?

Here's the last bit before the rather large bibliography from New Grove Dictionary of Music, the article on "Atonality" written by Paul Lansky and George Perle. If you actually read the entire thing you'll understand precisely why they say this and where they're coming from, but since I assume you already have it handy I'll just post the ending bit.

5. Conclusion.

Atonality thus roughly delimits a wide range of compositional practices whose only features are the absence of the normative and interrelated procedures of tonality and of the basic concept of serialism. It remains to be seen to what extent atonality is a useful or relevant musical category. The tendency of historical criticism to construct systems of classification which attempt to index individual entries as neatly and unambiguously as possible has certainly been frustrated so far. The individuality of the contributions of Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Bart

Of the select group of academics out there who I believe advocate an ideology formed around Atonality as opposed to merely supporting it as one of many different valid approaches to music, none of them seem to agree that contemporary music within the artistic music community overall should have a tonal center. It makes perfect sense to understand it as you do, Gardner. I wholeheartedly agree with you that it makes no sense. But it's the whole modernist dogma from the 60s and 70s that SSC addressed earlier in his response.

But note what the actual quote of yours was I replied to:

"If they believed any differently, they would write music with a pitch center."

I do believe differently, and so do most composers I know. Yet, I still generally write music "without a pitch center" (in which respect I'll have to agree with SSC that "pitch center" is an extremely unclear term already) - and so do most of those other composers I mention.

But regardless of all that, I'm not sure how much atonality has to do with the "modernist dogma of the 60s and 70s". There was, in certain circles, definitely a dogma of writing "progressive music" and not falling back into traditional patterns. And this certainly meant that it was generally avoided writing music in keys or creating tonical implications thoughtlessly. But there's still a vast range of music by rather "progressive composers" (in the sense that they tried to explore aspects of music that were new to their culture) that is very clearly tonal, respectively based around a dominant pitch or harmony. Nono, Grisey, Murail, Stockhausen, Scelsi, Kurtag, Ligeti, and many more all composed such pieces. Serialism, in its strictest forms, was a phenomenon that lasted only a couple of years in the 1950s for most composers. Most "avant-garde" music of the 60s and later went into quite different directions, for which the tonality/atonality difference mattered a lot less (but for which the generalised "serialist" paradigm of structure still often mattered).

Sure, the proponents of the Darmstadt school used very sharp words to condemn music they found inacceptable - but I'm personally not aware of them condemning any "tonal centres" outright. Again, it's a difference between writing music in an extended tonal language of the 19th century or writing "tonal music" in a much broader sense. Sure, "tonal sounding music" -was- often regarded sceptically, if no structural concept was evident behind it, because it easily sounded like a regression. And sure, many of the composers I mentioned above saw themselves in direct opposition to the Darmstadt school. But this multitude of different directions still -was- the musical reality of academia in the 50s and 60s and "modernism" doesn't only apply to a couple of composers during a couple of years.

But note what the actual quote of yours was I replied to:

"If they believed any differently, they would write music with a pitch center."

Then let me rephrase it as follows:

"If they believed any differently, they wouldn't take issue with composers who use a pitch/tonal 'center' (I agree that this is vague)."

But regardless of all that, I'm not sure how much atonality has to do with the "modernist dogma of the 60s and 70s". There was, in certain circles, definitely a dogma of writing "progressive music" and not falling back into traditional patterns. And this certainly meant that it was generally avoided writing music in keys or creating tonical implications thoughtlessly. But there's still a vast range of music by rather "progressive composers" (in the sense that they tried to explore aspects of music that were new to their culture) that is very clearly tonal, respectively based around a dominant pitch or harmony. [/Quote]

I can't really tell if you're trying to defend this period of musical history or not. I'm certainly not attacking it. It happened. I'm not really concerned one way or the other about that. I'm referring to it as "modernist dogma" in the sense that this structuralism is no longer necessary. But there are still circles who advocate that it is just as necessary today as it was in the 60s and 70s... that such rhetoric like that of the Darmstadt is perfectly valid today and studying the tonal system is a waste of time. It's ideological.

Sure, the proponents of the Darmstadt school used very sharp words to condemn music they found inacceptable - but I'm personally not aware of them condemning any "tonal centres" outright. Again, it's a difference between writing music in an extended tonal language of the 19th century or writing "tonal music" in a much broader sense. Sure, "tonal sounding music" -was- often regarded sceptically, if no structural concept was evident behind it, because it easily sounded like a regression.

Maybe you would know better than I, Gardener. I wasn't there to study or experience it first-hand. Like I said, I'm not condemning the composers or those who acted within the established structure of this period in history. It's dogma only because we see in hindsight that there is no point in being so restrictive toward other musical forms and styles. There are people still attached to this idea (perhaps something they've taken out of context, at that) that pitch/tonal center is unacceptable. I say this is ideological.

And sure, many of the composers I mentioned above saw themselves in direct opposition to the Darmstadt school. But this multitude of different directions still -was- the musical reality of academia in the 50s and 60s and "modernism" doesn't only apply to a couple of composers during a couple of years.

Well, I certainly didn't mean to impose a generalization of Modernism on a handful of composers. But I have hopefully explained myself more clearly in this response to you.

Well just to be clear, I'm against ANY and ALL compulsory "X music is scraggy, don't study/write it/whatever" regardless of what X is. For this reason I'm also against compulsory study of any kind of music if it doesn't help any. I mean I've been forced through 4 part choral writing courses just to regurgitate back some memorized pattern bullshit that is of NO use to me at all, I could've done better with my time than that. Likewise with analyzing Beethoven sonatas. Sure they're pretty I guess, but come on there's a lot more music than that.

"If they believed any differently, they wouldn't take issue with composers who use a pitch/tonal 'center' (I agree that this is vague)."

So, you're saying atonality is a doctrine because composers who write atonal music are against writing with a pitch/tonal center?

I can produce many counterexamples...

I mean, considering how many pieces straddle the boundary between tonality and atonality, it's hard to maintain the idea that atonality is a doctrine.

Plus, by focusing on the people who write atonal music, I think you're taking away too much attention from atonal music, which varies enormously and can't be said as a whole to be governed by any doctrines, in a practical sense.

Oh would you all shut up?! Y'all are making a huge deal about semantics again. Call a spade a spade and move on!

Oh would you all shut up?! Y'all are making a huge deal about semantics again. Call a spade a spade and move on!

Critical thinking is the foundation of using one's brain.

Semantics deals with classification and meanings, per se, and not encompassing topics. Those things (actual ideas) require a great deal of critical thinking as well. Besides that pondering fact, there's a great deal of decision-making-intuition and effort in being incongruous with culture and society that this deals with as well.

Not to be too choleric with your oversimplifications, you should really think more often. I mean really ponder. There are facets you are not seeing sparkle, and you're making the diamonds into... well... spades.

Slow down. Aaf;lskdfja;lskdfj with all the labels and political nonsense you pull into music, and think. Laser-like focus.... and zap.

Transcend.

Oh would you all shut up?! Y'all are making a huge deal about semantics again. Call a spade a spade and move on!

Thanks for contributing. Now don't post here again until you've had enough of an education to understand the discussion.

So, you're saying atonality is a doctrine because composers who write atonal music are against writing with a pitch/tonal center?

I can produce many counterexamples...

I mean, considering how many pieces straddle the boundary between tonality and atonality, it's hard to maintain the idea that atonality is a doctrine.

Plus, by focusing on the people who write atonal music, I think you're taking away too much attention from atonal music, which varies enormously and can't be said as a whole to be governed by any doctrines, in a practical sense.

To be honest I think he meant only a specific group of people which, to THEM, there is an ideology/doctrine to uphold. It says absolutely nothing about "atonal" music itself, only about some circles of composers.

Plus, by focusing on the people who write atonal music, I think you're taking away too much attention from atonal music, which varies enormously and can't be said as a whole to be governed by any doctrines, in a practical sense.

You're mincing my words. The people I am talking about who make Atonality ideological are the ones who tell other composers, "Don't use a pitch/tonal center in your music." These are also the same people who say, "Hey, tonal music is 'old' man, get with the times." These are also the same people who say, "Music is only art when you do something no one else has done before..."

These are all attitudes based on erroneous assumptions about music in general. And yes, they form an IDEOLOGY of how music should be written. And yes, they do straddle the lines of multiple styles that do not use a pitch/tonal center. So what?

Please, if you're going to debate this with me, please don't twist my statements into something they are not. This is an example of correctly comprehending my statements and providing a fair and accurate representation of my position overall. Notice SSC isn't 'agreeing' or 'disagreeing' with me. He's simply restating my position accurately.

To be honest I think he meant only a specific group of people which, to THEM, there is an ideology/doctrine to uphold. It says absolutely nothing about "atonal" music itself, only about some circles of composers.

Correct.

EDIT: By the way, I listened to the Dan Dennett video on youtube that you posted. What an interesting guy.

The term he comes up with, Deepity, just so happens to be a perfect term to explain what I meant.

The people I speak of create musical 'deepities':

The statement, "Music today uses no 'tonal center,'" is rather trivial. Okay... it's true but who cares? When you read it again, "Music today uses no tonal center," we realize this is actually false. There is plenty of music today that tonicizes or otherwise centers itself around a particular pitch or mode. So, we may wrestle back and forth with it, whether these pitches and modes can be called 'tonal centers', until some of us reach this level of 'profound insight' that all music is naturally Atonal and should therefore be treated as such.

And there we have it, a 'Deepity'. So, this becomes a spin on the concept of Atonality that forms an 'Ideology' for music based on an atonal principle. Thus, I conclude my discussion of this with the statement... Atonality is only ideological when individuals or groups engage in forming Deepities about Atonality to reach 'profound insight' into music. This holds just as true for Classicists, though. It holds true for practically anyone who engages in music 'profundity'.

Aw, gonna cry about it? What do you think a discussion forum is for anyway?

A discussion forum is a place to discuss ideas - not cram your views down others throats.

This is of course only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the wealth of literature that discusses these categorizations and the analysis of the pieces that should fit under them. I'm not the only one saying this, FAR from it... so that begs the question, what the hell were you doing those 15 years again?

Lets bring up G. Pearle then, mind you what I said earlier that general atonality/free atonality preceeded 12 tone (serial/dodecaphonic method):

And here I have to ask: define "tonal center." The reason I don't use terminology like that is because it means nothing TO ME. It describes nothing TO ME. To any musicologist worth their salt whatever terminology they use must be based entirely on literature and must be clear.

I agree, there has to be a precedent for a person to use terminology - or if they are creating a term there has to be a good reason for them to do so. As the term: TONAL CENTER, has been used multiple times in the past to describe music - I feel the word itself is relevant to my post and to other posts on this page by composers who wish to use it. Even if that means that it burns your eyes out everytime you see it SSC.

Goddamnit, again with "tonal center." Also to avoid confusion I tend to call Schoenberg's pre-12 tone music that isn't directly expressionist "free atonal." But that's not really important.

Sure thats important. Thats a discussion post right there! Why do you call it free atonal? I can see why you do, but WHY?

Recent times, eh? Everyone knows that you can trace already serial rhythmic organization in Berg's "Lyric Suite" (1925-1926,) specifically the third movement. But if you want a more recent example there's of course the extremely important "Mode de valeurs et d

As the term: TONAL CENTER, has been used multiple times in the past to describe music - I feel the word itself is relevant to my post and to other posts on this page by composers who wish to use it. Even if that means that it burns your eyes out everytime you see it SSC.

Give me a workable musicological definition of "tonal center" then, which is what I already asked for but you didn't answer. Likewise, if I don't understand the terminology you're using then it's pointless to use it. Define it or leave it out since to me it's not obvious what it means regardless of how many people you claim use it (funny I never hear this term anywhere other than in the internet when talking with Americans.) Oh, and once you do define it I will show you how useless it is, not just to me, but to anyone serious on studying about the topic (nevermind you also failed to address the points I already brought up on why I don't find it usable.)

Sure thats important. Thats a discussion post right there! Why do you call it free atonal? I can see why you do, but WHY?

Easy, since it's not bound to a particular composition system (12 tone is a system.) That's not to say there aren't similarities and lots of other things to the form and details of the "free" atonal pieces, it just means that they're detached from having a specific system that unites them all. This of course ONLY applies to the pre-12 tone technique pieces from Schoenberg and Co.

The point of calling them "free" is simply because that's an easier label than trying to group them in any specific way and it has more to do with the time they were written in than the specific characteristics of each piece. Again, only applies to a very select set of pieces from a very specific group of composers in a very specific point in time.

Oh, speaking of which, "atonal" would be an inaccurate label according to Schoenberg himself, who was calling what he was doing "floating in tonality" rather than "atonality." In fact he was pretty against that word to begin with. The reason I would concede to using it in only THAT specific instance (when addressing Schoenberg and his students specifically) is because of the historical implication. I don't see the term being fit for application when talking about Ligeti, Xenakis or Boulez for that matter for the same reason as their music is VASTLY different.

You're mincing my words. The people I am talking about who make Atonality ideological are the ones who tell other composers, "Don't use a pitch/tonal center in your music." These are also the same people who say, "Hey, tonal music is 'old' man, get with the times." These are also the same people who say, "Music is only art when you do something no one else has done before..."

So, to claim atonality is an ideology, you must believe if I make up a theoretical person, Joe, who writes atonal music, he can be represented by the composers to whom you are referring. You are saying these people are representative of atonality.

Otherwise, atonality isn't ideological. The beliefs about atonality which THOSE PEOPLE HOLD are ideological - which certainly isn't necessarily representative of all atonality.

You see, you can't make such a general category as atonality ideological. You can only make "subsets" (poor terminology, but whatever) of atonality ideological. Atonality is the lack of tonality. Nothing more.

I guess you could take the "compromise" position that atonality is ideological for some people an not for others, but that means that it fundamentally is not necessarily ideological.

Give me a workable musicological definition of "tonal center" then, which is what I already asked for but you didn't answer. Likewise, if I don't understand the terminology you're using then it's pointless to use it. Define it or leave it out since to me it's not obvious what it means regardless of how many people you claim use it (funny I never hear this term anywhere other than in the internet when talking with Americans.) Oh, and once you do define it I will show you how useless it is, not just to me, but to anyone serious on studying about the topic (nevermind you also failed to address the points I already brought up on why I don't find it usable.)

I have given an answer that to myself and others did answer exactly what you were looking for (in a previous thread). However, you failed then to agree with it citing the same reasons you state over and over and over again. No need to restate that to someone who no matter how in depth a definition I or anyone else gives you will come up with some far-fetched reasoning why that definition is either a) full of fault or 'fail'; b) ludicrous, as it doesnt take into account some extreme avant garde that you hold to an extremely high position in your own musical theology; or c) doesn't cater to your own views on the nature of music and musical theory.

Easy, since it's not bound to a particular composition system (12 tone is a system.) That's not to say there aren't similarities and lots of other things to the form and details of the "free" atonal pieces, it just means that they're detached from having a specific system that unites them all. This of course ONLY applies to the pre-12 tone technique pieces from Schoenberg and Co.

The point of calling them "free" is simply because that's an easier label than trying to group them in any specific way and it has more to do with the time they were written in than the specific characteristics of each piece. Again, only applies to a very select set of pieces from a very specific group of composers in a very specific point in time.

Thanks! :)

Oh, speaking of which, "atonal" would be an inaccurate label according to Schoenberg himself, who was calling what he was doing "floating in tonality" rather than "atonality." In fact he was pretty against that word to begin with. The reason I would concede to using it in only THAT specific instance (when addressing Schoenberg and his students specifically) is because of the historical implication. I don't see the term being fit for application when talking about Ligeti, Xenakis or Boulez for that matter for the same reason as their music is VASTLY different.

Well, according to what I gleam from the 1 reference material that you have brought out in this discussion, the reasons he despised the term had more to do with again the idea of the word itself. Atonality would refer to the absence of tones as opposed to the individualization of each tone or pitch. Which is something I believe both of us mentioned in one of the many other threads on this very same topic. ;)

@AA: Just to clarify: I wasn't trying to defend a certain historical period, nor was I saying that there weren't any cultural dogmata and ideologies during that time. The academic cultural world of the post-WW2 period certainly was rather dogmatic in many countries. My point was merely that this dogmatism had less to do with "atonality", but with more generalised modernist principles.

And this is how I know you're nothing but an amateur, Jaw.

Music theory exists to describe ACTUAL MUSIC. If your terminology is failing to account for ACTUAL MUSIC then it FAILS as a functioning part of any music theory conception. Yet, you write:

b) ludicrous, as it doesnt take into account some extreme avant garde...

That's a VERY good reason to ditch a term, really! It's a GREAT reason, in fact, because it's based on actual literature. Now if you'll say it doesn't apply, you're the one who has to explain why it doesn't. And, oh, really "extreme avant-garde?" DEBUSSY? Are you joking?

Ah now I remember why I shot you down, you affirmed that according to your definition of "tonal center" Debussy was "atonal." I remember also mentioning modes and all other sorts of "tonality" that would evade your definition beautifully (Wagner and Liszt come to mind, etc.) All very "extreme avant-garde" to you, I suppose.

As for:

...that you hold to an extremely high position in your own musical theology; c) doesn't cater to your own views on the nature of music and musical theory.

Projection much? Sorry but since when is whatever I happen to like or not even relevant at all to this? Also THEOLOGY?

This is a bad joke, as was:

(after 15 years of being involved in music and meeting a LOT of composers, musicians, historians, etc. - that is shocking to me.)

Sorry to tell you Jaw, but I highly doubt you were on top of the musicology field during middle school and highschool. Nevermind you weren't even studying composition (according to the bio on your site,) so really I'd take maybe 10 years out of those 15, and even then considering your level of discourse I wouldn't even count your education!

Come back when you've had more experience in the field (or get a proper education on the topic) and we'll talk. Until then, just stick to writing your music and leave the theory discussions to people who actually know anything about it, thanks!

---

SPEAKING OF WHICH: it was this very same thread where that crap happened. Here's the bit in particular:

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/discussion-about-tonal-atonal-music-22225-3.html#post323288

and likewise:

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/discussion-about-tonal-atonal-music-22225-4.html#post323304

Even CO called you on it, and he was very polite about it too.

Sigh...

Must you all continue? Please stop.

Sigh...

Must you all continue? Please continue.

Cuz you asked so nicely we'll continue don't worry.

I've seen this thread and have followed some of the discourse between members, but I thought I'd post on the general subject of atonal and tonal Music...

It's established that:

1)Tonality is the presence of a scheme of sounds, scales, keys, consonance and/or dissonance, configured in relation to a "home base", or tonic.

2)Atonality the absence of a tonic home base, meaning chords and intervals are picked at random/without hierarchal form.

I feel that the perceived need for lack of structure and the current practice of picking random notes as music has made creators of music madly obsessed with the need to create revived, contradictory, and so-called "fresh" new art.

However, as listeners of music first (before we were composers), we truly have been conditioned to tonality. Cognitively the brain picks up on patterns, chords, rhythms, developing a sense of musical taste/distaste and learns to attribute feelings/emotions to music. Feeling emotion is on a primal level for humans and music will perpetually affect our feelings/emotions. Atonality, at random, is heard by many and is regarded as awkward, funny-sounding, horrible, and unappealing, sometimes making emotion, besides disgust, difficult to derive from it.

Tonality will always be the accepted status quo in the world we live in and even among composers. Music survives and will continue to grow within tonal schemes. For professional composers, you must create music for the listener/consumer to connect with on many different levels, almost most importantly emotionally. Atonal music may have its place in other areas... Perhaps on a performance/collegiate level, atonality for the sake of learning what atonality is is acceptable to build awareness and to know what NOT to write. But what really is there to study within pure atonality? What is there to appreciate? Random notes, pitches, chords -WAIT- ?random has structure? That's what dissonance is for, lol.

We will remain faithful to the conditioning of tonality whether we like it or not. I, personally, want to feel my music. I don't want to be robot composing random notes.

Anyway, they say you always come back to "home base".

Cuz you asked so nicely we'll continue don't worry.

Lol. You sly devil SSC. :P

Ugh, another one of those.

What is there to appreciate?

DIFFERENT PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT TASTES IN MUSIC!? HOW CAN THAT BE????

It seems an AWFULLY difficult concept for people to get, specially on this site apparently.

DIFFERENT PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT TASTES IN MUSIC!? HOW CAN THAT BE???

So what? What makes the blanket statement right? Why must EVERYONE submit to one idea because a very small majority thinks one way or another?

DIFFERENT PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT TASTES IN MUSIC!? HOW CAN THAT BE????

LOL. This is true, everyone does have a different taste. You can't please everyone, and if you don't know this you can't please anyone...:veryunsure: