2 - Jon Anderson

3 - Ian Anderson

4 - Derek Shulman

5 -  Kerry Minnear

 

The order changes and I like a full boat of other great vocalists but now it's this.

2. The Moon Safaris

3. Rody Walker (Protest the Hero)

4. Peter Gabriel

5. Ian Anderson

I must admit I've never thought of this before actually

Justin Hayward

Greg Lake

John Wetton

Peter Nicholls

2. Cedric Bixler Zavala

3. Francesco Di Gacomo 

4. Scott Baker

5. Mikhael Anderfelt

Special mention would have to be the guy from Blind Gaurdian, Freddie Mercury, Chris Cornell only in his soundgarden days ha

Klaus Blasquiz

Peter Gabriel

Jon Anderson

Czeslaw Niemen

Jan Henrik Ohme

Russel Allen

Jonsi

Jon Anderson

I would say that failing only applies to Symphonic Prog/Neo prog/RPI/Eclectic and a lot of the older genres. A lot of Progressive Metal Vocalists are up there with the best in the world, and weak vocalists in modern Crossover are very rare.

Yes, more to the older genres.  I don't really like many prog metal vocalists either because while they are technically very good, they don't really project a distinct personality or emote as well as I'd like for my taste but that's more across-the-board.  The last two modern singers I could truly relate to are both long dead - Layne Stanley and Jeff Buckley.  

But for real are you guys serious? As I burn through the playlists of different genre's on here, I notice that Prog Metal has the most awful sounding singers in general. Anyone that sounds remotely like James LaBrie is just terrible.

Then you're looking at the 'Dream Theater' clones. I'm talking about good quality prog metal. For example 

- Mikael Akerfeldt

- Russel Allen

- Neige

- Jorn Lande

- Scott Kelly

- Maynard James Keenan

- Stefan Zell

I could go on...

And LaBrie sounds fine. Not amazing, but fine.

Cedric Bixler Zavala

Devin Townsend

James Labrie

Mikael Akerfeldt

 

Always loved Chris Thompson's voice mainly for MMEB admittedly but his solo work and singing on Jeff Wayne's War Of THe Worlds is brilliant as well. 

 

Hayward is from my home town but I do love his voice and gets my vote just for Question if nothing else

 

Lake - can make even the most 'daft' lyrics seem vitally important

 

Wetton - very soulfull

 

Nicholls - sheer angst and emotion. The Wake is the killer album as far as his vocals go (for me).

2. Bob Drake

3. Rob Wright (NoMeansNo)

4. Robert Wyatt (I just noticed how his name is very similar to Rob Wright)

5. Captain Beefheart

1 Jon Anderson

2 Steve Hogarth

3 Freddie Mercury

4 David Gilmour

5 Phil Collins

top 5 female:

1 Heather Findlay

2 Anna Jobs Bender / Johanna Bender

3 Lorraine Young

4 Annie Haslam

5 Kate Bush

2 Sonja Kristina

3 Renate Knaup-Krotenschwanz

and no more are really jumping out to me at the moment...

Mariusz Duda (Riverside, Lunatic Soul)

Dave Gahan (Depeche Mode)

Jon Crosby (VAST)

Steve Perry (Journey)

Maynard James Keenan (Tool, A Perfect Circle)

2. Geoff Tate

3. Chris Cornell

4. Daniel Gildenlow

5. David Coverdale

Below mentioned are mine Best Singers of all time:

1. Michael Jackson.

2. Amr Diab.

3. Rhydian.

4. Freddie Mercury.

5. Tamer Hosny.

Regards,
EDIT: Bye Spam.

2. Jon Anderson

3. Phideaux Xavier (Special Price to him for the most pleasant voice)

4. Charlie Dominici

5. Benoit David

You're kidding right?

He must be.

 

How can you forget Greg Lake or Annie Haslam???

 

Mine:

 

1. Greg Lake

2. Annie Haslam

3. Roger Daltry (Rock, but perhaps one of the richest most powerful voices ever in music.)

4. Jon Anderson

5. Roye Albrighton (Nektar - Listen to "Telephone" from Man InThe Moon, that dude has vocal power!).

 

Honorable Mention:  Classic Elton John

, believe it or not, I am not kiddin! Charlie Dominici just had to be in my list for being the vocalist on my Nr.2 favourite albums of all time wich is Dream Theater´s WDAU. I bought this album when it came out and after all those years it has absolutely stood the test of time for me. I love listening over and over to it, it does not get boring and the vocals are great!

I put Benoit David in my list  as I love his work with Mystery. The two albums he done with Mystery are examples of one of the most beautiful vocal peformances for me. His work on the new Yes album is also not bad.

 

That CD is simply smashing & super and all those other superlatives that begin with an "S" that

our friends across the pond like to use.

 

http://www.amazon.com/One-Among-Living-Mystery/dp/B003ILCKQA" rel="nofollow - http://www.amazon.com/One-Among-Living-Mystery/dp/B003ILCKQA

 

A bit too much reverb on the overall mastering, but some awesome music, especially when you BLAST it

on a fine stereo.  Benoit David's voice sounds clear and powerful on that record.

 

"You can drive the fastest car...."

 

Todd Smith
Leilindel

Cedric Bixler-Zavala
James LaBrie

 

Holy Smokes,

 

I have never heard of any of those people.

Robert (Bobby) Martin (From The Mothers)

Richard Sinclair

Robert Wyatt

Roger Hodgson

Thijs Van Leer

So I can check it out.

Mr. Bungle is a must. 

 

Hmm, I actually made it through the entire video. After expressing my love for vocals such as Annie Haslam & Greg Lake,

and you bringing to my attention Mr. Patton:  I feel much akin to a sissy. My other deeply personal fav of Jon Anderson makes me feel downright suicidal for being such a "girly-man".

 

With respect to all tastes, I honestly ask:

 

When did yelling & screaming & talking(rap) become "vocal styles"?  I along with billions of fellow earthlings can do that.

As a musician I don't understand this.

 

If I took my guitar and threw it around stage and ran a rubber chicken up and down the strings... Would that be

"harsh or alternate guitar styles?

 

Please don't answer with "to each his own" cause clearly rubbing a rubber chicken against a guitar is not playing an instrument. (If it was I would do it a lot more often than I do.)

 

Can you edge-a-mah-cate me?

 

Cheers!

 

 

 

 

 

I had posted my own top 5 earlier in this thread and named Annie Haslam and a bunch of other *sissy* singers in the list but I have to say I cannot and would not want to imagine Annie's voice set to the kind of music you heard on that Faith No More track.  On the other hand, I can relate to that type of music and how it is pertinent to our times so if harsh vocal styles are what will befit such music, so be it.  And for me, tasting the harshness only makes gentle singing sound sweeter to my ears (though I know a lot of people are either totally into clean or totally into harsh).  Patton is not right at the top of my favourites for a different set of reasons but I believe harshness now has a place in music, while I fully understand why it is hard to relate to because I didn't like it from the get go either. 

Actually, I would say if you want to be doing harsh vocals as a professional and perform them day in day out, it is much harder to find a safe technique.  Whereas, it is really not that hard to learn to sing like McCartney or Lennon, technically speaking. I am not trying to demean them but they sing in a comfortable pitch that you can also emulate without hurting your voice but you have to be very, very careful if you want to check out the growls on the next death metal album yourself.  

 

Thanks,  

 

I think you make a clear & concise case.  I find your point of view on this illuminating.  I suppose, while some desire music

to reflect more violent & modern standards I would defer to that unknown poet who said: Music To Soothe The Savage Breast ("Music has charms to soothe a savage breast," - William Congreve)

 

I do not buy the "modern" or "harsh times" call for harsher music argument.  Why?  Most plantiff or "punk" or RAP bands rally against what they perceive as dark or "bad times".  Well compared to how life has been historically, we live in a calm, love-fest of an era in relative terms.  For some reason, "lower class" or very base actions have been introduced into music and have been acepted.(Ex. MTV showing a concert of a band who gave themselves enemas and the band collectively deficated on the audience in the front few rows.)  Why would people do this and be part of this?(At a musical level silly, not some wild porn driven fantasy, involving super-models...)

 

There seems to be a fine line with singing, as I really enjoy Roger Daltry & Geddy Lee.  But I guess they are first singers (something you can track with a musical pitch.) versus mostly yelling & screaming.  Am I to juge?  Certainly not, who knows???  I just know that using violence or corruption in society is not a valid reason to be violent or vulgar in art.  You can just run get into Politics if violence & vulgarity interest you!

 

I am not judging or considering this from my preferences or opinions.  Example: I HATE & can't stand Opera singers.

The piercing constant screaming is pure pain for me.  But I validate opera singers as being of the finest musicians,

as it takes YEARS of training & practice to get to their level.

 

Yes, these modern rock screamers need to protect their voices and not yell all the time, but it is not really that hard,

many people talk loud and yell all the time and they keep their voices until their other parts wear down.

 

Cheers!

 

Hi Equality 7-2521,

 

If you enjoy Mr. patton as an artist, that is as good as anybody enjoying any other artist, including myself.  However....

 

There are just so many things wrong with your argument.  First, millions of people can NOT sing.  Proper singing is very difficult. First is pitch.  Most people think they can sing but are shocked to learn how off key they are.  Oh and there is breath control and dynamics and projection....  Yeah man, you couldn't be more wrong here. Talent with an external instrument or a human voice is "everything" you just made my case for me. Many very wealthy & famous rock bands actually have little talent.  Talent is not emphasized in today's corporate music business. In addition, nobody needs to emulate Mr. Patton, as everyone has their own timbre in their voice.  What he does with his voice? Different story and it is quite simple to bark & talk with a mic. If he is popular? I can not judge or speak against that.  That is down to individule choice.

 

You spoke of Stravinsky.  He innovated, which should happen in music.    Keith Emerson stuck knives in his keyboard, but he still actually played his keyboard.  He is judged for what he played not his stage antics.

 

You wrote: "There are very few people who have a good enough feel for rhythm to be a stellar rapper.

You are kidding right???  All RAP is spoken(not sung) in the same basic cadence. Millions of millitary servicemen

"RAP" in a cadence as they march.  It is probably the most basic musical element that probably 98% of the Earth's population can do.  I think you misread the mega-corporate music industry.  The industry is not about promoting

hundreds or artists based on talent like in the past.  It is about MEGA-Promoting a few RAP, Alternative, Metal, etc.. bands.  Just because the band is No.1 does not mean they are any good or earned their way there.  It simply means they are the ones the industry chooses to promote at the time.  I don't think I am breaking any new ground here.

 

i dare to mention the great Tiny Tim. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny_Tim_%28musician" rel="nofollow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny_Tim_(musician )  He was wildly popular & famous

for making the strangest sounds with his voice.  That did not make him a great singer.

 

You like what you like that is cool.  Please do not call my arguments "silly".  The only thing remotely silly about my musical affinities is my undying enjoyment of 1969-1976 Elton John albums, oh and Three Dog Night.

 

Dude!  Check out Three Dog Night singer Chuck Negron,  That dude can sing and he had talent and I can't think

of a better example to show what an actual singer is.

 

DM

 

 

 

dennismoore wrote: I do not buy the "modern" or "harsh times" call for harsher music argument.  Why?  Most plantiff or "punk" or RAP bands rally against what they perceive as dark or "bad times".  Well compared to how life has been historically, we live in a calm, love-fest of an era in relative terms.  For some reason, "lower class" or very base actions have been introduced into music and have been acepted.(Ex. MTV showing a concert of a band who gave themselves enemas and the band collectively deficated on the audience in the front few rows.)  Why would people do this and be part of this?(At a musical level silly, not some wild porn driven fantasy, involving super-models...)

I don't agree with much of this.  First off, I don't think this is a calm era.  I guess it depends on where you live. What if you live in a country where there is at least one major terrorist strike every year?  And I still live in India, as opposed to strife-prone countries like Syria and I don't live in Kashmir or the Indian NorthEast where there is frequent civilian-army conflict resulting from so called encounter killings.  Er, I don't want to divert this discussion to an unpleasant direction but maybe the world seems peaceful and loving and all that in Europe or America, but definitely not in Central and South Asia.   Economically too, there is turmoil as the next great depression looms large on the horizon. 

Lower class elements...I guess dictatorship of the proletariat has been the rule in music for the last 50-60 years now?  So it's not really something new.  I am sure the reaction of classical purists to the first wave of rock would have been similar to yours to harsh vocals.  I for one refuse to judge music as vulgar or classy or base, etc.  My favourite composer said once, "What is music?  Even a dog's bark can be music."  and I remind myself of that rule if ever I feel I am getting judgmental about music.

dennismoore wrote: There seems to be a fine line with singing, as I really enjoy Roger Daltry & Geddy Lee.  But I guess they are first singers (something you can track with a musical pitch.) versus mostly yelling & screaming.  Am I to juge?  Certainly not, who knows???  I just know that using violence or corruption in society is not a valid reason to be violent or vulgar in art.  You can just run get into Politics if violence & vulgarity interest you!

Well, with reference to that Mike Patton, he is in fact singing in several patches there.  It may not be a style of singing you really like, but he IS hitting notes, he is carrying a tune.  And that is definitely not something he cannot do. 

 

dennismoore wrote: I am not judging or considering this from my preferences or opinions.  Example: I HATE & can't stand Opera singers. The piercing constant screaming is pure pain for me.  But I validate opera singers as being of the finest musicians, as it takes YEARS of training & practice to get to their level.

Um, in that case, if difficulty is the only criterion, then I assure you extreme vocals ARE difficult to pull off day in day out.  Not that I personally attach much importance to technicality.  Yes, what opera singers do is tough but their singing usually doesn't speak to me emotionally. So, therefore...

 
 

dennismoore wrote: Yes, these modern rock screamers need to protect their voices and not yell all the time, but it is not really that hard, many people talk loud and yell all the time and they keep their voices until their other parts wear down.

I won't really respond to this other than that this is ill informed.  

 

dennismoore wrote: I do not buy the "modern" or "harsh times" call for harsher music argument.  Why?  Most plantiff or "punk" or RAP bands rally against what they perceive as dark or "bad times".  Well compared to how life has been historically, we live in a calm, love-fest of an era in relative terms.  For some reason, "lower class" or very base actions have been introduced into music and have been acepted.(Ex. MTV showing a concert of a band who gave themselves enemas and the band collectively deficated on the audience in the front few rows.)  Why would people do this and be part of this?(At a musical level silly, not some wild porn driven fantasy, involving super-models...)

I don't agree with much of this.  First off, I don't think this is a calm era. 

You make great points, but I did not mean to say that America has it better then Asia, etc..  I mean in general.
My grandfather & his peers worldwide had a 6 day work week, NO medical insurance, no benefits.  My father
lived through a World War where entire cities were destroyed. Their parents lived in a world that 1 in 3 mothers died in childbirth because of more primitive medicine, "that" is what I meant.  Times have ALWAYS been tough and frankly much tougher for past generations.  Yes, you are right today we have many problems too, global economic mess, corporate corruption, etc...   Well said.  I still say things were in fact much tougher in prior generations.
I just read a bit about the Ottoman Empire, things were pretty damn hard in Turkey prior to 1910!  Modern Turks have it considerably better, for sure.  So there is still no reason to run around like Curt Cobain saying how horrible life is.
It just isn't in relative terms to how humans have always needed to struggle. 

If some rock star takes off his shirt and yells and screams it will not fix any of this.

Well, with reference to that Mike Patton, he is in fact singing in several patches there.  It may not be a style of singing you really like, but he IS hitting notes, he is carrying a tune. 

Yes, Mr. Patton certainly is above the punk rock screamers, yet you said it best "he is carrying a tune" that is about it.
People confuse mega popularity with mega talent. I do thank that is the case with Mr. Patton.  Can he sing? ok, sure.
Just because many people like him that does not make him talented.

Um, in that case, if difficulty is the only criterion, then I assure you extreme vocals ARE difficult to pull off day in day out.  Not that I personally attach much importance to technicality.  Yes, what opera singers do is tough but their singing usually doesn't speak to me emotionally. So, therefore...

I think our whole argument is summed up when say you don't attach " importance to technicality" like technicality is a bad thing or a not needed bonus thing.  Talent, practice and technical proficiency are everything in music,
unless you want to be the next "pop rock" sensation.

 
 

dennismoore wrote: Yes, these modern rock screamers need to protect their voices and not yell all the time, but it is not really that hard, many people talk loud and yell all the time and they keep their voices until their other parts wear down.

I won't really respond to this other than that this is ill informed.  

My above comment about "not that hard" was in relation to a real professional singer(not you & I).
If you think these yellers & rap artists are on par with real singers as far as what they need to maintain their voice, I find that unbelievable and I do think it is a "generation" thing.  Kinda "my generation" is as good as your old generation. An artist is not "talented" or professionally competent because a generation declares him that.
His/her art is self evident. Generations not withstanding.  And there are tried and true measures to define that talent, regardless what the "pop" culture claims.



[/QUOTE]

-------------
"Yeah, people are unhappy about that - but you know what, it's still Yes." - Chris Squire

 

dennismoore wrote: You make great points, but I did not mean to say that America has it better then Asia, etc..  I mean in general. My grandfather & his peers worldwide had a 6 day work week, NO medical insurance, no benefits.  My father lived through a World War where entire cities were destroyed. Their parents lived in a world that 1 in 3 mothers died in childbirth because of more primitive medicine, "that" is what I meant.  Times have ALWAYS been tough and frankly much tougher for past generations.  Yes, you are right today we have many problems too, global economic mess, corporate corruption, etc...   Well said.  I still say things were in fact much tougher in prior generations. I just read a bit about the Ottoman Empire, things were pretty damn hard in Turkey prior to 1910!  Modern Turks have it considerably better, for sure.  So there is still no reason to run around like Curt Cobain saying how horrible life is. It just isn't in relative terms to how humans have always needed to struggle.  If some rock star takes off his shirt and yells and screams it will not fix any of this.

I was not comparing America and Asia.  I just pointed out that there is in fact conflict and strife in Asia.   I am sorry but I don't recall even the British empire opening fire on innocent civilians in Mumbai's busiest railway station.  So if people believe that the times are far more comfortable today, that is perhaps because they feel insulated from such violence (because there are no world wars now) and have become apathetic to the world's problems. 

dennismoore wrote: Yes, Mr. Patton certainly is above the punk rock screamers, yet you said it best "he is carrying a tune" that is about it. People confuse mega popularity with mega talent. I do thank that is the case with Mr. Patton.  Can he sing? ok, sure. Just because many people like him that does not make him talented.

Um, Patton sings, raps, growls on just this song apart from assimilating several other styles over the course of his career.  I honestly do not know of any other singer who uses all these styles of vocals regularly...there may well be, but he is certainly in a small minority in any case.  Which is why I referred to him as one of the most versatile singers in rock. 

dennismoore wrote: I think our whole argument is summed up when say you don't attach " importance to technicality" like technicality is a bad thing or a not needed bonus thing.  Talent, practice and technical proficiency are everything in music, unless you want to be the next "pop rock" sensation.

Once again, it takes a lot of practice to get right a harsh vocal technique and then be able to produce it every time in concert, over loud, distorted guitars.  The key here is to note that a 'screamer' or a 'shouter' is not actually screaming or shouting.  If you really did scream or shout all the time, you'd damage your voice very quickly.  What they are doing, in terms of voice production, is controlled and deliberate in just the same way as a singer carrying a tune; the only difference is in the harsh, violent effect. 

So my point was simply that technicality alone does not make a great singer.  Technical accomplishment gives a singer more options, ability to cover more material, hit a wider span of pitches.  But it is down to the singer's skills in emotional interpretation whether he/she can make something memorable with it.  Annie Haslam and Mariah Carey can both sing in the sixth octave and in fact, Carey can hit notes in the seventh.  And yet, how much does that necessarily say about them?  Christina Aguilera can do runs and melismas I haven't heard Stevie Wonder pull off but the ones he does are far more tasteful and add so much more to the music.  Tasteful...is that not a very subjective quality?  Is that not more perceptive than technical? 

I recall that Miles Davis quote, "Why play all the notes?  Only play the ones that are good."   Technicality gives the singer the ability to hit all the notes, in a manner of speaking, but art is about interpretation and presentation, not just technical skill.

 
 

dennismoore wrote: My above comment about "not that hard" was in relation to a real professional singer(not you & I). If you think these yellers & rap artists are on par with real singers as far as what they need to maintain their voice, I find that unbelievable and I do think it is a "generation" thing.  Kinda "my generation" is as good as your old generation. An artist is not "talented" or professionally competent because a generation declares him that. His/her art is self evident. Generations not withstanding.  And there are tried and true measures to define that talent, regardless what the "pop" culture claims.

No, I am sorry, you are very much mistaken there.  First of all, you are again generalizing yellers and rap artists as if they are all the same.  Each harsh vocal technique is different and, frequently, a singer cannot master them all.   If anything, even with a 'safe' technique, singers using harsh technique are  more prone to vocal strain than somebody who sings cleanly.  If you are just singing cleanly without using a wide  range, you don't need any significant voice maintenance.  My father is 55 and his voice hasn't lost much even though he hardly practices and has to attend to business tours frequently.   If you want to sing like Annie Haslam and maintain 3/4ths of that level till you are 64, then yes, that is specialized.  But how many, clean or harsh, can do that?  Not Lake, Daltrey,  Geddy, Gillan or other rock greats.  That is my point.  Contrary to your argument, even the great rock singers were more about expression and personality than technical skill.  Ronnie James Dio was another who kept belting magnificently until his last breath, but such singers are rare in rock.    

Coming from the perspective of someone who once hated harsh vocals and then grew to appreciate them, I think it's important to realize that growls/harsh vocals are one component of the music and don't define an entire artist/piece. There's a difference between "noise music" and noise in music.  Add to that the fact that harsh vocals aren't just noise; because they are made by a human voice, they can have quite a bit of emotional clout.  Portraying negative emotions in music can help listeners to restrain those emotions in real life and keep them in their proper bounds and proper direction.  This happens when the listener puts himself in the place of the performer and relates to his emotions, and it's called catharsis.  Also, harsh vocals can function as a kind of percussion; think of them as melodic percussion, in that they flow like a melody but have a percussive timbre.

With regards to the debate over modern era vs. the old days, it was neither better nor worse back then than it is now.  Each age has its own joys and sorrows, conveniences and challenges.  Technological advances have, in ways, made life better, but they also have pitfalls, including the way in which they encourage individualistic thinking.  It's chronological snobbery to try and elevate one era as better than another.

Just off the top of my head (and sticking to prog)...

1. Peter Gabriel

2. Jon Anderson

3. Joanne Hogg

4. Geddy Lee

5. Toby Driver

But tomorrow it will probably be completely different

Wow, I didn't know that.

That's awesome.

I can get up to an A5 (and I'm a guy) but I don't think you ever want to hear it 

 

You mean chest voice?  I actually just go into falsetto and reach up as high as I possibly can.  This usually results in people either laughing at me or begging me to stop before their eardrums pop

Now that I listen to this, I realize you're probably right...

But I'll post it anyway because it's incredible. 4:25-4:50 is the part where he hits the high notes.

 

God damn it.

Is there any way to find out copyright info about a video before posting it?

It's just part of the system that the really obscure bands who need money don't get any of that copyright protection, and the bands like Rush that are drowning in the stuff get videos blocked.  But I guess we'd probably never hear any of the underground music without free streaming on the net.

2. Peter Gabriel

3. Maynard James Keenan

4. Jon Anderson

5. Peter Hammil

It's like saying Jazz is easier than classical because you just improvise. 

But seriously, it's a silly thing to say, that rapping is easier. It's very easy to sing. I'm doing it right now. It's very easy to rap. Rappity rap rap. Does that mean I just did of those well? No. Not at all. Playing a flute is really easy, you blow through one whole and sound comes out. Does that mean I'm a good flute player? Yeah it does. Flute easy, anyone who play flute not musician, and should be stoned, particularly if they play on one foot (love you Ian).

 

I can testify from experience that rapping is easy, but that actually doing it well is ridiculously hard, unless you happen to have a natural talent for it.

One of the things I dislike so much about American Idol and similar shows is that it's impossible to succeed on them unless you have a voice that conforms to the musical mainstream, in that if Peter Gabriel, Geddy Lee, or Peter Hammil were ever to go on the show, they'd get kicked out in no time.  They have had people in the past like Adam Lambert who actually were unique and unconventional, but as soon as they leave the show the record companies force them into a box and squash their talent until they have nothing left.  Chris Daughtery has such a powerful voice that he could have made some really beautiful and potent music, but instead he just got stuck singing bland pop rock music.

I think he should get together with Mike Portnoy and make a prog metal album

I actually love Geddy's rap on Roll the Bones, I wish they'd perform it live instead of prerecording it, because that would be hillarious. 

Like your sig, btw

Is it Geddy? I had always presumed Neal. Is it a rap even?