开云体育

Both jazz and blues are heavily based on improvisation and often can contain
many of the same elements, but jazz tends to often included more complex
harmonic structure, the use of altered chords and substitutions, and .
"Jazz" can cover a wide spectrum of style and feel (latin, swing, funk,
Brazilian, etc - and all the variations of each style). These are just a few
differences, out of many.

Hope this helps,

Ted Vieira
--
Listen to my CDs for free:


--
Or visit my website:

Bio Information, Sound Files,
Free Online Guitar Instruction, Books, CDs and more...

Hi all,

I am new to Jazz & Blue music and I want to understand the basic concepts of
them. Could anyone tell me the differences between the Jazz & Blues music ?
Thanks in advance.

Regards,
VDT

The chinese were the first to experiment with a 12 tone
system but without considering even temperment(12,000 B.C.)
from "Theory of evolving tonality". Blues at times can seem
chromatic, but jazz is chromatic(if it wants to be, or maybe
if you it to be). Take your favorite blues head and play it
in all twelve keys and then maybe try to hear it in all
twelve keys. This seems like a simple question but it's not.
I taped that 20 hour documentory on jazz(PBS-USA) hosted by
people like Wynton Marsallis (what a classy guy). I know I'm
not the only one in the group who watched it. >>Ross

Well, jazz and blues can have some similarities. Depends on
the context. Labels on music styles are almost always
questionable.

Similarities: they both tend to be improvisational. The
improvised solo is usually the point of the tune. Many jazz
tunes use the same form as a standard blues tune, which
generally follow a 12- or 8-bar blues form. The appropriate
scales to play over both jazz and blues can be similar, as
far as playing "wrong" or "outside" notes over chords being
more desirable than in, say, music of the Baroque era. Swing
8th notes can have a lot to do with both jazz and blues,
although not necessarily. Blues can have a straight 8ths
funk-type feel, as can jazz.

The differences are more in where the two styles have ended
up. Many people consider blues to be louder, more raw, with
less complex chord changes. This depends on what blues you
may listen to. Stevie Ray Vaughn's "Pride And Joy" is about
as far away from Pat Metheny's "Phase Dance" as I can think
of. Blues has become, in my opinion, more of a
guitar-dominated, rock-influenced music. There are good
players and bad players, which is subjective, of course.
Much of what is considered blues probably doesn't contain
much more than I7, IV7, and V7 chords. In jazz, we can play
a blues, but while it may follow the same basic form, there
are likely to be more chords, such as secondary dominants,
related ii-7 chords, more superimposed harmonies, etc. The
focus for a jazz player playing a blues is likely to be on
playing over the harmony, whereas many blues players use one
scale in the key of the song. That's subjective as well.
There are definitely players such as Larry Carlton and
Robben Ford who retain a more raw, "bluesy" feel and sound,
but still use more complex chords and soloing concepts. They
blur the line between jazz and blues.

That's my quick overview. Anyone else?

Mike Crutcher
Guitarist/Vocalist/Arranger/Instructor
Available for sessions/fill-ins/performances/private lessons.

"You've Got To Funkifize"
-Tower Of Power

Most musicians will tell you they are the same. (However, the
difference between blues and gospel is that gospel is about God and
blues is about women (or the lack thereof).

But the 'record store' definition would be (in general):

Blues: basically 3 chord tunes with solos on a minor pentatonic
scale. Blues club = Really drunk, loud, rowdy, fun, crowd
(think 'party')
(Early blues: imagine some guy in the deep south with a guitar
singing a tune that starts with "I woke up in the morning and my
woman was gone..." (melody in 2 notes: the minor third and tonic))
that's blues.

Jazz: complex chord changes with solos that non-Jazz people can't
follow. Jazz club = Really quiet, serious, crowd... (think 'museum',
or art gallery)
(Early Jazz: think of dixieland jazz (not necessarily the earliest
but...)

Having said that, music is all just hearing it. If you have doubts
about the difference between jazz and blues, just go to amazon.com
and listen to B.B. King, Muddy Waters, Buddy Guy etc... That's
BLUES. Listen to Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Miles Davis etc...
That's Jazz. (but be careful with this categorization because jazz
guys 'play the blues', but blues guys usually don't 'play the jazz')

If they all sound the same to you, good for you because it's all just
really, really great music.
Who cares what its called....(as long as you know where to find it at
Tower!)

We should be especially careful now about categorization because of
all the new stuff going on. What I consider jazz, some guys will
say 'that ain't jazz' (Wynton says that alot about a lot of people,
and its his way of putting people down, but this is really silly
too. No one woke up and 'created' jazz. It just happened... and it
is happening now, so no one can really say it is or it ain't jazz.)

Anyway, that't another topic altogether that I would rather not get
into (unless someone REALLY wants to! ;))

Ken

I am new to Jazz & Blue music and I want to understand the basic

concepts of

them. Could anyone tell me the differences between the Jazz &

Blues music ?

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
VDT

Well, having read so many replies... here's my 2 cents worth of the
difference.

Limiting the scope to only blues and jazz, Blues came first and jazz
is what I term a cauldron of different musical influences.

Blues started way back when slaves used to work in plantations in
America. It was more of an expression of opression, sadness and at
the same time a form of release. Blues would take a form of call and
response, over the I-IV-V progression. From this, it evolved to the
present state but there's no escaping the I-IV-V progression.

Jazz was more of an offshoot of blues, but it had a mixture of
different musical influences, ragtime, swing, popular tunes in the 20s
onwards, latin, etc. While jazz may use the I-IV-V progressions, it
is not limited to that. There are rhythm changes such as I-vi-IV-V7
kind of progression. Not to mention the use of colourful chords,
harmonies borrowed from any kind of musical influences. Yes, even
classical music from the classical era (Bach, etc) or Romantic era
(Debussy, Ravel) and modern era (Stravinsky, Schonenberg). Jazz is
still evolving as you can see

That to me is the primary difference.

seb

jazz_guitar@... wrote:

Original Message:
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 22:33:52 -0000
From: kuboken1@...
Subject: Re: The difference between Jazz & Blues

Most musicians will tell you they are the same. (However, the
difference between blues and gospel is that gospel is about God and
blues is about women (or the lack thereof).

Nope. Bluesers ALWAYS gots wimin, or one, at least. It's
simply a matter of who is abusing whom or the priveleges
thereof, or who ain' woikin', or she lef' fer anudder man,
or he got caught cheatin', or two of 'em got their notes on
ya together an' EEYOWY, "it" hoits so bad; BUT, the bottom
line is; NO MONEY, HONEY! ;)

But the 'record store' definition would be (in general):

Blues: basically 3 chord tunes with solos on a minor pentatonic
scale. Blues club = Really drunk, loud, rowdy, fun, crowd
(think 'party')

I dunno, take some of the turnarounds that Ted Greene or
Lenny Breau came up with and... Well, maybe that makes 'em
jazz, but then the solos, well, except for those
turnarounds, but then... Also, I've been in blues joints in
Chicago where you'd swear everyone was on Thorazine, well
coulda been 'Ludes, tho... ;)

(Early blues: imagine some guy in the deep south with a guitar
singing a tune that starts with "I woke up in the morning and my
woman was gone..." (melody in 2 notes: the minor third and tonic))
that's blues.

Nah... It's no shoes, or durty or no socks, hole inna
pocket, no money, feelin' low down, an' usin' a B string for
a low E an' two others jis' missin'... But da wimins is
flockin' all aroun' to feed me dem chittlins con carne...
BTDT. :)

Jazz: complex chord changes with solos that non-Jazz people can't
follow. Jazz club = Really quiet, serious, crowd... (think 'museum',
or art gallery)

One of the worst fights I ever saw was at a "serious" venue,
between two guys in three piece suits... The cops broke one
guy's arm before he'd stopped swinging. Sh*t happens. And,
morons are everywhere.

(Early Jazz: think of dixieland jazz (not necessarily the earliest
but...)

Having said that, music is all just hearing it. If you have doubts
about the difference between jazz and blues, just go to amazon.com
and listen to B.B. King, Muddy Waters, Buddy Guy etc... That's
BLUES. Listen to Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Miles Davis etc...
That's Jazz. (but be careful with this categorization because jazz
guys 'play the blues', but blues guys usually don't 'play the jazz')

If they all sound the same to you, good for you because it's all just
really, really great music.
Who cares what its called....(as long as you know where to find it at
Tower!)

I suppose one could be concerned with aesthetics enough to
want actual history... So, in that case, The Blues came
first; before Jazz, that is. That (Blues), coming from
Gospel Music, and that coming from the "Field Chants" of
African slaves in America, and THAT coming from reworked
African tribal stuff of varying celebrations, feasts,
gathering of food, etc. Then came the so-called Delta Blues,
which worked it's magic into Urban Blues, and jazz evolved
at about the same time, taking on many directions almost
spontaneously. I think history shows that Dixieland took it
from bluesers jamming and became a fixed idiom that remains
today ala the Na'Lenz Jazz Funeral, and that "today's jazz"
probably evolved from folks wanting to hear one solo at a
time rather than all of 'em at once. White folks poked
around in there somewhere; ostensibly, to make the crude,
"acceptable..." q:P~~~ Regardless, all of those roots are
grounded firmly in "The Blues." And, if you can't play the
Blues, I sure wouldn't give ya two hoots for yer jazz... :)

(And, before anyone gets down on Americans for their abuse
of "natives," just know that there are no "Native
Americans." American Indians are not indigenous to this
country, they just got here before anyone else in MODERN
history. Wherefore, there is archeological evidence that
they probably moved out some humans who were here long
before them, as well... Also, some Injuns kept slaves, as
did some Africans, for that matter...)

We should be especially careful now about categorization because of
all the new stuff going on. What I consider jazz, some guys will
say 'that ain't jazz' (Wynton says that alot about a lot of people,
and its his way of putting people down, but this is really silly
too. No one woke up and 'created' jazz. It just happened... and it
is happening now, so no one can really say it is or it ain't jazz.)

Anyway, that't another topic altogether that I would rather not get
into (unless someone REALLY wants to! ;))

Geez, there's so many variations, only an arrogant ass would
call one form "jazz" and another "not jazz." I've heard
people say there ain't no jazz in rock 'n roll, and yet,
there is, Fusion i.e. Same for C&W, 69b5 chords keep
creepin' in, Chet Atkins "broke the ice..." BB King can play
some wicked "mainstream jazz," I heard him doing it from his
dressing room at the Jazz Medium in Chicago about 20 years
ago. I recorded an album with Jethro Burns (Chet's
brother-in-law, BTW) in the mid-70s (about a year after
Homer died) on which he played Django stuff (and a killer
dedication original) on Mandolin, then he proceeded to play
the same stuff on a Martin D-45, soloing so well that it
intimidated the crap outa me, his then sorta mediocre (by
comparison) rhythm guitarist. Buddy Emmons (Nashville Steel
Guitarist) plays killer jazz on pedal steel... He plays
blues too, and recorded with Albert King, no less. Every
form of music has seen jazz creep in at some point or
another, even folk music. Brazilian music has it combined
with classical music. Then, there's all of this Afro-Latin
stuff... So, a better questions might be, what ISN'T jazz?
:)

Regards,
...z


On the other hand, you have different fingers...

-- =---Seek the truth, speak the truth!---= --

L.G. "Zeek" Duff
WHAT!Productions!
Blue Wall Studio
303.485.9438
ICQ#35974686

If you play a blues record backwards the woman comes
back, you get rich and your car works, etc... Ha Ha.
Mark

Hi all,

Thank you so much for all of your responses on this subject.
I am now start to understand the differences between Jazz &
Blues music.

I look forward to learning Jazz music from you soon,
especialy the chords progression. I love Jazz's chords
progression !!!! :-)

Have a great day.

Cheers,
VDT

=====
Emails:
VietDuyTran@...
viettran@...

Website (Nha.c):

Thank you for the clarification. I completely agree. In any
case, to keep things simple, just listen to Charlie Parker
(jazz) and B.B. King (blues)! You can go forward and
backwards in history from there and figure it out...

Most musicians will tell you they are the same. (However, the
difference between blues and gospel is that gospel is about God

and

blues is about women (or the lack thereof).

Nope. Bluesers ALWAYS gots wimin, or one, at least. It's
simply a matter of who is abusing whom or the priveleges
thereof, or who ain' woikin', or she lef' fer anudder man,
or he got caught cheatin', or two of 'em got their notes on
ya together an' EEYOWY, "it" hoits so bad; BUT, the bottom
line is; NO MONEY, HONEY! ;)

But the 'record store' definition would be (in general):

Blues: basically 3 chord tunes with solos on a minor pentatonic
scale. Blues club = Really drunk, loud, rowdy, fun, crowd
(think 'party')

I dunno, take some of the turnarounds that Ted Greene or
Lenny Breau came up with and... Well, maybe that makes 'em
jazz, but then the solos, well, except for those
turnarounds, but then... Also, I've been in blues joints in
Chicago where you'd swear everyone was on Thorazine, well
coulda been 'Ludes, tho... ;)

(Early blues: imagine some guy in the deep south with a guitar
singing a tune that starts with "I woke up in the morning and my
woman was gone..." (melody in 2 notes: the minor third and

tonic))

that's blues.

Nah... It's no shoes, or durty or no socks, hole inna
pocket, no money, feelin' low down, an' usin' a B string for
a low E an' two others jis' missin'... But da wimins is
flockin' all aroun' to feed me dem chittlins con carne...
BTDT. :)

Jazz: complex chord changes with solos that non-Jazz people can't
follow. Jazz club = Really quiet, serious, crowd...

(think 'museum',

or art gallery)

One of the worst fights I ever saw was at a "serious" venue,
between two guys in three piece suits... The cops broke one
guy's arm before he'd stopped swinging. Sh*t happens. And,
morons are everywhere.

(Early Jazz: think of dixieland jazz (not necessarily the

earliest

but...)

Having said that, music is all just hearing it. If you have

doubts

about the difference between jazz and blues, just go to amazon.com
and listen to B.B. King, Muddy Waters, Buddy Guy etc... That's
BLUES. Listen to Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Miles Davis

etc...

That's Jazz. (but be careful with this categorization because

jazz

guys 'play the blues', but blues guys usually don't 'play the

jazz')

If they all sound the same to you, good for you because it's all

just

really, really great music.
Who cares what its called....(as long as you know where to find

it at

Tower!)

I suppose one could be concerned with aesthetics enough to
want actual history... So, in that case, The Blues came
first; before Jazz, that is. That (Blues), coming from
Gospel Music, and that coming from the "Field Chants" of
African slaves in America, and THAT coming from reworked
African tribal stuff of varying celebrations, feasts,
gathering of food, etc. Then came the so-called Delta Blues,
which worked it's magic into Urban Blues, and jazz evolved
at about the same time, taking on many directions almost
spontaneously. I think history shows that Dixieland took it
from bluesers jamming and became a fixed idiom that remains
today ala the Na'Lenz Jazz Funeral, and that "today's jazz"
probably evolved from folks wanting to hear one solo at a
time rather than all of 'em at once. White folks poked
around in there somewhere; ostensibly, to make the crude,
"acceptable..." q:P~~~ Regardless, all of those roots are
grounded firmly in "The Blues." And, if you can't play the
Blues, I sure wouldn't give ya two hoots for yer jazz... :)

(And, before anyone gets down on Americans for their abuse
of "natives," just know that there are no "Native
Americans." American Indians are not indigenous to this
country, they just got here before anyone else in MODERN
history. Wherefore, there is archeological evidence that
they probably moved out some humans who were here long
before them, as well... Also, some Injuns kept slaves, as
did some Africans, for that matter...)

We should be especially careful now about categorization because

of

all the new stuff going on. What I consider jazz, some guys will
say 'that ain't jazz' (Wynton says that alot about a lot of

people,

and its his way of putting people down, but this is really silly
too. No one woke up and 'created' jazz. It just happened...

and it

is happening now, so no one can really say it is or it ain't

jazz.)

Anyway, that't another topic altogether that I would rather not

get

into (unless someone REALLY wants to! ;))

Geez, there's so many variations, only an arrogant ass would
call one form "jazz" and another "not jazz." I've heard
people say there ain't no jazz in rock 'n roll, and yet,
there is, Fusion i.e. Same for C&W, 69b5 chords keep
creepin' in, Chet Atkins "broke the ice..." BB King can play
some wicked "mainstream jazz," I heard him doing it from his
dressing room at the Jazz Medium in Chicago about 20 years
ago. I recorded an album with Jethro Burns (Chet's
brother-in-law, BTW) in the mid-70s (about a year after
Homer died) on which he played Django stuff (and a killer
dedication original) on Mandolin, then he proceeded to play
the same stuff on a Martin D-45, soloing so well that it
intimidated the crap outa me, his then sorta mediocre (by
comparison) rhythm guitarist. Buddy Emmons (Nashville Steel
Guitarist) plays killer jazz on pedal steel... He plays
blues too, and recorded with Albert King, no less. Every
form of music has seen jazz creep in at some point or
another, even folk music. Brazilian music has it combined
with classical music. Then, there's all of this Afro-Latin
stuff... So, a better questions might be, what ISN'T jazz?
:)

From: "Sebastian" <jazz_1971@...>
Reply-To: jazz_guitar@...
To: jazz_guitar@...
Subject: [jazz_guitar] Re: The difference between Jazz & Blues
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 07:08:22 -0000

Jazz was more of an offshoot of blues, but it had a mixture of
different musical influences, ragtime, swing, popular tunes in the 20s
onwards, latin, etc. While jazz may use the I-IV-V progressions, it
is not limited to that. There are rhythm changes such as I-vi-IV-V7
kind of progression. Not to mention the use of colourful chords,
harmonies borrowed from any kind of musical influences. Yes, even
classical music from the classical era (Bach, etc) or Romantic era
(Debussy, Ravel) and modern era (Stravinsky, Schonenberg). Jazz is
still evolving as you can see

I always thought Claude Debussy (and his peers) was a member of the Impressionist School (not the Romantic). In fact, as the story goes, the unpredictability of his harmonies and his habit of extending chords - something the Romantic School would loathe - may have inspired some early bebop luminaries. Anybody agrees?

harmonies borrowed from any kind of musical influences. Yes, even
classical music from the classical era (Bach, etc) or Romantic era
(Debussy, Ravel) and modern era (Stravinsky, Schonenberg). Jazz is
still evolving as you can see

I always thought Claude Debussy (and his peers) was a member of the
Impressionist School (not the Romantic). In fact, as the story goes, the
unpredictability of his harmonies and his habit of extending chords -
something the Romantic School would loathe - may have inspired some early
bebop luminaries. Anybody agrees?

I agree. I think impressionist music in general and Debussy's music in
particular inspired lots of modern jazz pianists. The whole quartal thing
associated with McCoy Tyner in the 60s was already happening in "classical"
music in the end of the XIX century. Among popular musica styles, Jazz not
only was able to draw from that, but develop in ways classical music has not
been able.
And, BTW, Bach doesn't belong to the classical period (a quite short period
where you would put Mozart, Haydn, and early Beethoven), but to the Baroque
period, and I'm still amazes at how, 300 years later, his views on melodic
development and voice leading still inspire lots of performers and
composers.
Patricio Murphy
NAN - Buenos Aires, Argentina

--- In jazz_guitar@y..., "Deolindo Casimiro" <
dcasimiro@h...> wrote:

From: "Sebastian" <jazz_1971@y...>
Reply-To: jazz_guitar@y...
To: jazz_guitar@y...
Subject: [jazz_guitar] Re: The difference between Jazz & Blues
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 07:08:22 -0000

Jazz was more of an offshoot of blues, but it had a mixture of
different musical influences, ragtime, swing, popular tunes in the 20s
onwards, latin, etc. While jazz may use the I-IV-V progressions, it
is not limited to that. There are rhythm changes such as I-vi-IV-V7
kind of progression. Not to mention the use of colourful chords,
harmonies borrowed from any kind of musical influences. Yes, even
classical music from the classical era (Bach, etc) or Romantic era
(Debussy, Ravel) and modern era (Stravinsky, Schonenberg). Jazz is
still evolving as you can see

I always thought Claude Debussy (and his peers) was a member of the
Impressionist School (not the Romantic).

Correct. This person didn't use the usual historical
categories. Bach is Baroque; Mozart and
Beethoven are Classical; Brahms, Chopin, Wagner,
and Tchaikowsky are Romantic; Ravel and
Debussy are Impressionistic (quite anti-Romantic,
in fact).

But the point is jazz draws on all these influences,
and on blues and show tunes . . .

-----Mensagem original-----
De: Patricio Murphy <murphy@...>
Para: jazz_guitar@... <jazz_guitar@...>
Data: Sbado, 18 de Agosto de 2001 16:18
Assunto: RE: [jazz_guitar] Re: The difference between Jazz & Blues

harmonies borrowed from any kind of musical influences. Yes, even
classical music from the classical era (Bach, etc) or Romantic era
(Debussy, Ravel) and modern era (Stravinsky, Schonenberg). Jazz is
still evolving as you can see

I always thought Claude Debussy (and his peers) was a member of the
Impressionist School (not the Romantic). In fact, as the story goes, the
unpredictability of his harmonies and his habit of extending chords -
something the Romantic School would loathe - may have inspired some early
bebop luminaries. Anybody agrees?

I agree. I think impressionist music in general and Debussy's music in
particular inspired lots of modern jazz pianists. The whole quartal thing
associated with McCoy Tyner in the 60s was already happening in "classical"
music in the end of the XIX century. Among popular musica styles, Jazz not
only was able to draw from that, but develop in ways classical music has

not

been able.
And, BTW, Bach doesn't belong to the classical period (a quite short period
where you would put Mozart, Haydn, and early Beethoven), but to the Baroque
period, and I'm still amazes at how, 300 years later, his views on melodic
development and voice leading still inspire lots of performers and
composers.
Patricio Murphy
NAN - Buenos Aires, Argentina

It's important to remember that brazilian music has a lot of the romantic
and impressionistic eras. Tom jobim used a lot of chords that debussy and
chopin used in their music. Sometimes people called him Tom "chopin".

Rodd

I posted:

I agree. I think impressionist music in general and Debussy's music in
particular inspired lots of modern jazz pianists. The whole quartal
thing associated with McCoy Tyner in the 60s was already happening in
"classical" music in the end of the XIX century. Among popular musica
styles, Jazz not only was able to draw from that, but develop in ways
classical music has not been able.

Rodrigo answered:

It's important to remember that brazilian music has a lot of the romantic
and impressionistic eras. Tom jobim used a lot of chords that debussy and
chopin used in their music. Sometimes people called him Tom "chopin".

You're right. I didn't even mention brazilian music because it's a whole
issue on its own. The guitar playing ina Brazilian music is always amazing,
whatever style you choose. The Villa-Lobos device of moving a shape while
keeping open strings ringing may be the most thoroughly used device in
modern guitar playing!
Patricio Murphy
NAN - Buenos Aires, Argentina

--- In jazz_guitar@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

--- In jazz_guitar@y..., "Deolindo Casimiro" <dcasimiro@h...> wrote:

From: "Sebastian" <jazz_1971@y...>
Subject: [jazz_guitar] Re: The difference between Jazz & Blues
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 07:08:22 -0000

changes such as I-vi-IV-V7 kind of progression. Not to mention
the use of colourful chords, harmonies borrowed from any kind of
musical influences. Yes, even classical music from the
classical era (Bach, etc) or Romantic era (Debussy, Ravel) and
modern era (Stravinsky, Schonenberg). Jazz is still evolving as
you can see

I always thought Claude Debussy (and his peers) was a member of
the Impressionist School (not the Romantic).

Correct. This person didn't use the usual historical
categories. Bach is Baroque; Mozart and
Beethoven are Classical; Brahms, Chopin, Wagner,
and Tchaikowsky are Romantic; Ravel and
Debussy are Impressionistic (quite anti-Romantic,
in fact).

But the point is jazz draws on all these influences,
and on blues and show tunes . . .

Hi Paul and Deolindo,

I'm sorry for the confusion. Bach is from the Baroque period
and Ravel, Satie and Debussy belongs to Impressionistic
period. The good thing from this mistake is... I know
there's someone out there reading my posts. :)

My main point still stands that Jazz draws from different
influences and is forever changing. The current(?) trend of
fusion/acid or radio-friendly jazz may not suit individual
taste as can be seen in the "Bruno vs Metheny" discussions
but... one can choose to listen to jazz music they like and
not be bounded by another's opinions of which jazz guitarist
is behaving like an ass, or whose's music is considered
jazz. If you like the music, chances are that you'll enjoy
it even if its called "Foo-foo music" by some.

Meanwhile, unless I've too much time on my hands... it's
back to more practising.

Regards to all,
seb