1
00:00:00,620 --> 00:00:13,250
And now, Shickley Mix. Well, Mr. Shickley, looks like you're actually ready today. Just wind me up and point me towards the console. Here's the theme.

2
00:00:29,400 --> 00:00:37,920
Hello there, I'm Peter Shickley. And this is Shickley Mix, a program dedicated to the proposition that all musics are created equal.

3
00:00:38,260 --> 00:00:50,720
Or as Duke Ellington put it, if it sounds good, it is good. And our bills, it's good to know, are paid by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, by the National Endowment for the Arts,

4
00:00:51,330 --> 00:01:01,840
and by this excellent radio station whose very broadcasting captured me in its net. And they've kept me around to make these intoxicatingly educational shows,

5
00:01:02,040 --> 00:01:14,160
which, as luck would have it, are distributed by PRI, Public Radio International. You know, it's bound to come out sooner or later. So I guess I might as well.

6
00:01:14,280 --> 00:01:26,520
I'll come clean right now and admit that I am a member of a cult. Not a religious cult, a movie cult. No, it's not Rocky Horror. I've only seen that once. It's a John Huston movie called Beat the Devil.

7
00:01:26,780 --> 00:01:35,760
And I suppose I've seen it 15 or 20 times, and I mean in movie theaters. It used to play pretty regularly on the Upper West Side of Manhattan in the late 50s.

8
00:01:36,260 --> 00:01:47,780
You knew you were surrounded by fans when there was a sort of expectant laughter before the jokes. Humphrey Bogart. Robert Morley. Gina Lola Brigida. Jennifer Jones. Peter Lorre.

9
00:01:47,880 --> 00:01:59,460
Anyway, there's one scene in which a bad guy nicknamed the Galloping Major is playing the old upright piano in a bar. And sort of around the corner, out of sight, in another room of the bar,

10
00:01:59,680 --> 00:02:09,919
Bogey is worrying that the Galloping Major might try to bump off one of the good guys. And Bogey says, well, as long as the Major is playing the piano, he can't be up to any mischief.

11
00:02:10,500 --> 00:02:20,880
A few moments later, Bogey goes like, uh-oh, and gets up and rushes into the room with the piano. And there it is, playing by itself. The Galloping Major's long gone.

12
00:02:21,520 --> 00:02:29,940
You may think you can tell the difference between a piano being played by a person and a piano being played by a mechanical role. But can you?

13
00:02:30,360 --> 00:02:42,280
Remember, instruments may be mechanical, but they're programmed by humans. Here's your chance to find out if your musical nose, as it were, is acuter than Humphrey Bogart's.

14
00:02:42,660 --> 00:02:52,520
Of course. Of course, to some people, nobody's cuter than Humphrey Bogart. Okay, for ten points, which piece is being played by a warm body and which by a robot?

15
00:08:58,440 --> 00:09:09,260
Okay, Mead Lux Lewis, playing his honky-tonk train blues, followed by Jelly Roll Morton, playing the jelly roll blues. And the envelope, please.

16
00:09:13,210 --> 00:09:24,310
Mead Lux Lewis was recorded live. The Jelly Roll Morton was a piano roll. But of course, the point is, that the piano roll was made directly from Morton's playing,

17
00:09:24,490 --> 00:09:34,390
not by somebody with a piece of sheet music and a slide rule. The mechanical system was used to preserve and duplicate an original performance as faithfully as possible,

18
00:09:34,570 --> 00:09:46,670
including, in the more sophisticated systems, dynamic shading. Remember, in the 1920s, phonograph recordings were still pretty low-fi. But if you had a good player piano in your home,

19
00:09:46,790 --> 00:09:57,230
it was almost like being able to call Jelly Roll Morton up anytime you needed it. And say, Hey, JR, come on over and play for me. So that's one way of looking at mechanical instruments.

20
00:09:57,510 --> 00:10:08,670
They're a way of making specific performances of music available to anyone, just like a phonograph. But another way of looking at them is to see them as a way of expanding the sonic palette.

21
00:10:09,230 --> 00:10:19,750
For instance, why not write a piece taking advantage of the fact that a player piano is not restricted to what can be accomplished by ten fingers on two hands?

22
00:10:20,610 --> 00:10:32,610
Both in terms of reach and rhythmic complexity. To boldly go where no pianist has ever gone before. Here are some examples of music written expressly for mechanical instruments.

23
00:10:32,970 --> 00:10:42,090
No live performance was used to make the rolls or cylinders. Okay, the first and last of these four pieces are for player pianos,

24
00:10:42,150 --> 00:10:48,470
and in between we'll hear a mechanical organ and a music box. I'll see you in about nine minutes.

25
00:19:50,580 --> 00:20:00,300
Whew, beat me daddy, eight to the bar. Our mechanical instrument suite began with Stravinsky's Etude for Pianola, a kind of player piano,

26
00:20:01,040 --> 00:20:12,860
and it continued with part of Hindemith's Suite for a Mechanical Organ. How about those drum solos, huh? That instrument was obviously more like a theater organ or a merry-go-round organ

27
00:20:12,860 --> 00:20:23,680
than what Bach played on. And speaking of Bach, the third item, the one with the music box, was the trio of the fourth movement of a piece for nine instruments

28
00:20:23,680 --> 00:20:32,960
called the Nono Nanette by P.D.Q. Bach. And then that last toe-tapping lollapalooza was Conlon Nancaro's

29
00:20:32,960 --> 00:20:41,140
Study for Player Piano No. 3E. I guess you could work the pedals for that one with very small feet.

30
00:20:42,120 --> 00:20:50,220
Nancaro has devoted much of his composing life to the player piano and has done things that you could never do in a live performance.

31
00:20:51,620 --> 00:21:03,940
As usual, I was intimately involved in bringing the P.D.Q. Bach work to light, and it was a kick getting the music box made. There was a bit of time pressure, but somebody gave me the name of an outfit in Switzerland,

32
00:21:04,200 --> 00:21:16,620
I wrote the music box part out on manuscript paper and sent it over there, and true to the Swiss reputation, the mechanism and cylinder with properly placed pins came back like clockwork,

33
00:21:16,780 --> 00:21:29,020
exactly when they said it would. It was easy. So, why don't modern composers write for music boxes and music clocks the way Haydn and Mozart and Beethoven did? Two reasons, I think.

34
00:21:29,420 --> 00:21:39,260
One is that the advent of the phonograph changed how we listened to music at home, and the other is that, well, to be quite frank,

35
00:21:39,260 --> 00:21:50,960
most modern composers haven't written tunes that people want to wake up to, or hear every hour. In the 18th century, the same composers often wrote music for every kind of occasion,

36
00:21:51,120 --> 00:22:00,980
from dances to church services, whereas 20th century classical composers have tended to concentrate on high art,

37
00:22:01,820 --> 00:22:12,720
and usually very high art with a very furrowed brow. Now, I brought along my music box that plays part of

38
00:22:12,720 --> 00:22:18,720
Webern's Variations for Piano, Op. 27. It's all wound up here, I'll just open the lid.

39
00:22:35,400 --> 00:22:45,840
I was thinking of going into business, selling music boxes, featuring the greatest hits of the Second Viennese School, but I don't know, I don't think that they'd ever really move,

40
00:22:45,920 --> 00:22:55,820
like pet rocks or piano keyboard neckties. It's just that I've always wanted to have a company and an office with my name on the door, you know what I mean?

41
00:22:56,800 --> 00:23:04,260
You know what? That gives me an idea. Excuse me, just a minute here while I make a quick call. This won't take long. Just a second.

42
00:23:07,210 --> 00:23:15,790
Hello? Is this the Lord High Executioner? Oh, come on, I'm just kidding. I know your title is Station Manager.

43
00:23:16,090 --> 00:23:24,950
Listen, I was wondering, since I'm probably the main person using this studio, I mean, in terms of, well, anyway, do you think it would be possible

44
00:23:24,950 --> 00:23:30,390
to have maintenance paint, you know, on the door, on the outside of the door,

45
00:23:31,170 --> 00:23:42,090
Shickley Mix, Peter Shickley, proprietor, from PRI, Public Radio International? Yes, yeah, I can see that.

46
00:23:42,710 --> 00:23:54,270
Of course, yeah, I know other people do use the studio. It's just that I've always, you know, wanted my name on the door. Well, it was worth a try. No, no, no, oh, no. Oh, no.

47
00:23:54,950 --> 00:24:04,550
I wouldn't make a call like this while I'm on the air. Okay, well, thanks anyway. Bye. I hope they don't have the air check tape rolling.

48
00:24:06,090 --> 00:24:14,450
So anyway, folks, as I was saying before I was interrupted by that phone call, there are many interesting things about piano rolls, and here's one of them.

49
00:24:14,870 --> 00:24:24,670
In the 1920s, Igor Stravinsky supervised the making of piano rolls of his works, including the Rite of Spring at the Pleyel Studio in Paris.

50
00:24:24,670 --> 00:24:35,710
Now, in those days, no orchestra could play the last section of the Rite of Spring as fast as Stravinsky wanted it. But on the piano roll, of course, it's up to tempo.

51
00:24:36,550 --> 00:24:47,090
Now, here's a theory that somebody has come up with. It just so happens that Bartok, Copland, and Prokofiev all made piano rolls at Pleyel around that same time.

52
00:24:47,310 --> 00:24:59,830
And they certainly would have been interested in hearing the Rite of Spring rolls. And all of them later wrote musical passages. And all of them later wrote musical passages that bear a strong resemblance to the sacrificial dance at the fast tempo,

53
00:25:00,010 --> 00:25:08,470
not at the tempo they would have heard at an orchestral performance. For instance, when you hear the piano roll of the sacrificial dance,

54
00:25:08,770 --> 00:25:20,870
followed by the last movement of Prokofiev's seventh piano sonata, you have to say, coincidence? I don't think. Well, maybe, but I doubt it.

55
00:29:28,050 --> 00:29:37,710
Wowee! Two etudes in the key of adrenaline. The Pleyel piano roll of the sacrificial dance at the end of Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring,

56
00:29:38,510 --> 00:29:49,670
followed by Maurizio Pollini playing the last movement of Prokofiev's piano sonata number seven. Today's show is called Revenge of the Nerdy Instruments, and I'll tell you why.

57
00:29:50,450 --> 00:30:02,470
Music boxes and player pianos and musical clocks have always been regarded as charming and fun, and perhaps of historical interest, but not really to be taken seriously,

58
00:30:02,650 --> 00:30:11,930
in spite of the sporadic interest of serious composers. But after World War II, they were dealt a death blow as serious contenders,

59
00:30:12,110 --> 00:30:18,770
when their twin functions of preserving performances and expanding performance possibilities

60
00:30:19,310 --> 00:30:28,790
were quite suddenly taken to new and giddy heights by the development of audio tape recording and of computers and digital techniques.

61
00:30:30,190 --> 00:30:38,690
First, someone figured out how to record on wire. When I was a kid, I knew somebody with a wire recorder. That must have been 1946 or 47.

62
00:30:39,210 --> 00:30:48,870
But the trouble with wire recorders was that if the wire broke, there was no way to splice it. You could tie a knot, but it wouldn't go through the machine too well, to put it mildly.

63
00:30:49,570 --> 00:30:58,830
Now, I think my brother and I must have had a tape recorder by 1949. We used to tape music from records. To accompany the 8mm movies we made.

64
00:30:59,410 --> 00:31:10,910
Tape recorders not only permitted a quantum leap in the fidelity of recorded sound, but as soon as they appeared, people began to realize how they could be used to manipulate sound.

65
00:31:11,330 --> 00:31:19,330
You could not only speed things up and slow them down, but you could play them backwards, and make loops, and combine many different layers,

66
00:31:19,450 --> 00:31:28,850
and, very big and, you could edit with tremendous precision. After centuries and centuries of tinkering,

67
00:31:29,010 --> 00:31:40,950
the musical inventors, not the practical instrument builders, but the nerdy idealists who wanted to preserve performances and release instruments from the physical limitations of the human body,

68
00:31:41,230 --> 00:31:49,730
after almost a millennium of being treated like court jesters or society band leaders, they finally struck pay dirt.

69
00:31:49,950 --> 00:32:02,770
When they invented the tape recorder, and then much later digital storage systems, they finally created what we may loosely call a mechanical instrument that has changed the face of music.

70
00:32:03,530 --> 00:32:13,630
See, in the 1930s, the very best recordings of, say, the Boston Symphony or Duke Ellington's Orchestra, were no more than souvenirs of live performances.

71
00:32:13,850 --> 00:32:25,150
They may have been in a hall, or they may have been in a recording studio, but they were live, real-time performances. But by the middle 1960s, not only far-out so-called experimental composers,

72
00:32:25,150 --> 00:32:37,010
but even the maximally mainstream Beatles, were making recordings that could not be duplicated live. For better or worse, the recording was the work of art.

73
00:32:37,730 --> 00:32:47,810
Take something as simple as a fade-out at the end of a song. Properly used, a fade-out is a wonderful thing. In a song like Martha and the Vandellas Dancing in the Streets,

74
00:32:47,890 --> 00:32:59,630
it conveys the feeling that the song is going to go on forever. It's a cosmic block party that will never end. In one of the cuts on the Miles Davis' Sketches of Spain album, it has a cinematic effect.

75
00:32:59,730 --> 00:33:08,490
You feel the procession moving down the street into the distance. But when the Beatles performed live, they put definite endings on the songs.

76
00:33:08,630 --> 00:33:20,730
Because trying, in a live situation, to imitate an electronic fade-to-nothing never works. It always sounds phony. At best, it comes across as cute. But it's certainly not evocative.

77
00:33:22,030 --> 00:33:31,150
Right from the beginnings of electronic music, or tape music, or whatever you want to call it, there have been two basic approaches, which by now have completely merged.

78
00:33:31,990 --> 00:33:44,810
One is to manipulate pure tones produced by oscillators, which, by the way, is what a Hammond organ does. And the other is to manipulate recordings of natural sounds. You could hit two stones together,

79
00:33:45,030 --> 00:33:56,750
you could bang a saucepan with a spoon, you could record the wind in the trees, whatever you want. I'm going to play you a few cuts from an LP that came out in the 1950s, on which the composer Vladimir Usachevsky

80
00:33:56,750 --> 00:34:05,890
demonstrates some basic tools for tape composition. Most reel-to-reel tape recorders have two speeds, one twice as fast as the other.

81
00:34:06,270 --> 00:34:13,770
So anything you record, you can also hear an octave higher or lower. And if you've got two machines, you can repeat that process.

82
00:34:14,270 --> 00:34:19,610
All the notes on this cut are derived from playing the lowest A on the piano.

83
00:35:05,930 --> 00:35:17,090
Now, if you pass a single recorded sound over a series of playback heads, and decrease the playback volume on each successive head, you get the effect of an echo.

84
00:35:17,650 --> 00:35:21,430
Here are the same sounds we just heard, with reverberation.

85
00:36:03,600 --> 00:36:12,180
Now, here's a little experimental piece that Usachevsky called underwater waltz, which utilizes the sounds we just heard.

86
00:37:35,840 --> 00:37:47,260
Usachevsky, underwater waltz. Henry Cowell was at the first demonstration of tape experimentation. He was at the composers' forum in New York on May 9th, 1952. And he wrote,

87
00:37:48,000 --> 00:38:00,260
One would not expect such a series of mechanical repetitions to be related to human experience. Yet to nearly everyone, the effect seems to suggest some half-forgotten, elusive experience.

88
00:38:02,020 --> 00:38:13,780
Okay, now that's extremely basic stuff we just heard. That's like the John Thompson teaching little fingers to play of tape music. But it is true that a lot of early tape music, when it comes to music, when it wasn't being loud and apocalyptic,

89
00:38:14,060 --> 00:38:23,420
was being soft and eerie and liquid, sort of like Dolly's melting watches underwater. Here's something that was recorded in 1969.

90
00:38:59,370 --> 00:39:11,670
That was a piece that... What do you mean? That's the irrelevancy alarm. I was not digressing in the slightest. Wait a minute, it's printing out here. Let's see what it says.

91
00:39:12,870 --> 00:39:25,190
Okay. Oh, man. You know, there's a polygraph built into this thing, and it says I'm telling a lie. Well, thanks a lot. You just gave away the little joke I was playing on our listeners.

92
00:39:25,750 --> 00:39:37,770
I was just about to tell you folks that I was pulling your leg there. That wasn't tape music at all. It was a whale singing in the Caribbean. Were you fooled or not?

93
00:39:38,350 --> 00:39:51,170
I thought I'd just sneak today's tidbit time in without any warning. Well, anyway, so much for that. Why was a lot of early tape music weird and disjointed?

94
00:39:52,130 --> 00:40:03,210
Now, you might think it was to distinguish itself from conventional music, to be as different as possible. But you know what? A lot of conventional music from that time was weird and disjointed.

95
00:40:03,870 --> 00:40:14,850
Weird and disjointed is what those composers were interested in. Here's an interesting opportunity to compare tape and conventional. We're going to use tape. We're going to hear part of a piece called Phonemona

96
00:40:14,850 --> 00:40:25,150
for soprano and tape by Milton Babbitt. He wrote the accompaniment out in traditional notation first, and then it was synthesized at the Columbia Princeton Center.

97
00:40:25,690 --> 00:40:36,510
But the traditionally notated part turned out to be playable on piano, and Babbitt has made both versions available. Let's listen to the beginning, first with tape, then piano.

98
00:40:36,830 --> 00:40:45,850
It's interesting that after your ear gets accustomed to the synthesized sounds, the opening low notes on piano almost sound like tape music.

99
00:42:00,800 --> 00:42:28,140
Now, the text of Phonemona is simply made up of phonemes,

100
00:42:28,140 --> 00:42:40,320
which are the smallest sound units of speech. But any music, and especially vocal music, presents an emotional landscape, and it seems to me that the textures of the synthesized version

101
00:42:40,320 --> 00:42:50,800
change the feeling of the ending of this piece quite a bit compared to the piano version. Here are the last 26 notes. 30 seconds, first with piano, then tape.

102
00:43:33,410 --> 00:43:43,450
The ending of Milton Babbitt's Phonemona, with Lynn Webber singing first with Jerry Kuderna on piano, then with a synthesized tape.

103
00:43:43,730 --> 00:43:56,350
Rather more sinister ending with the tape, I think. Speaking of the Columbia Princeton Center, I was part of a special several-day seminar for young composers at Princeton in August of 1959.

104
00:43:57,650 --> 00:44:08,290
And one day we took a field trip up to the Columbia Princeton Music Synthesizer there on 125th Street in Manhattan, and Milton Babbitt was showing us how it works and everything,

105
00:44:08,430 --> 00:44:19,550
and he showed it off, and it was a big room filled with equipment, you know. And so finally somebody said, well, Milton, do something. You know, synthesize something for us. And so he said, okay, what do you want?

106
00:44:19,730 --> 00:44:31,610
And we, the cream of the crop of young American composers, all we could come up with was AC Major Skate. He said, okay. So he started at the keyboard there, and as I remember it,

107
00:44:31,610 --> 00:44:44,490
there was no musical instrument-type keyboard on that thing. There was only a sort of a typewriter keyboard, like a computer keyboard. So he started typing in frequency, attack, decay. You know, you have to define all that stuff.

108
00:44:45,090 --> 00:44:57,630
And he went on and on. We got sort of bored. I remember wandering into the next room, looking around at everything. It felt like 20 minutes later or so, he said, okay, everybody, come on back. So we all come back. He pushes the start button.

109
00:44:57,650 --> 00:45:08,430
And it goes . That's it. And it makes you realize in those days it took a long time to do a piece. I mean, I think that machine was really set up as much for research

110
00:45:08,430 --> 00:45:17,650
as it was for performance because it would take a long time to make a substantial piece with that kind of energy going into defining every little detail

111
00:45:17,650 --> 00:45:29,690
and apparently not being able to repeat it easily. I think that Milton Babbitt remembers me from that seminar but probably not for musical reasons.

112
00:45:29,970 --> 00:45:41,110
He's a very affable guy. And a bunch of us went out for beer after one session down in Princeton. And somebody knocked a glass of beer off the table. And I caught it before it hit the ground.

113
00:45:41,530 --> 00:45:50,590
I mentioned that incident to him recently. And he remembered it immediately. I bet if you said, Milton, who was the composer at that seminar

114
00:45:50,590 --> 00:46:02,270
who wrote the songs for baritone, bassoon, and trombone, he would have no idea. But if you said, who was that composer? Who caught the beer glass in midair? He'd say, oh, that was Peter Schickely,

115
00:46:02,430 --> 00:46:14,020
the host of Schickely Mix from PRI, Public Radio International. We're talking about the revolution during the last half century.

116
00:46:14,320 --> 00:46:26,000
Depending on your viewpoint, it's a Promethean or a Frankensteinian revolution in mechanized music making, brought about by the tape recorder and digital storage systems.

117
00:46:26,740 --> 00:46:38,120
One of the problems with tape music has been that the idea of bringing an audience into an auditorium to sit there and listen to a couple of loudspeakers, or even a dozen loudspeakers, has never really caught on.

118
00:46:38,700 --> 00:46:49,780
One of the ways around this is to do what Babbitt did in that last piece, combine a live performer with a prerecorded tape. That not only provides an animate visual focus for the audience,

119
00:46:49,980 --> 00:47:02,440
which seems to be important even for abstract music, it also provides a bit of dramatic tension between the contribution of the warm body and that of the robot. Another thing is that, as I mentioned before,

120
00:47:02,740 --> 00:47:13,560
the album has become an artistic artifact in itself, and since everything you hear on an album is recorded, it's often impossible to distinguish among sounds that are

121
00:47:13,560 --> 00:47:22,900
quote, real, or sounds that are synthesized, or sounds that are sampled. Now, sampled is like when we were doing a PDQ Bach piece

122
00:47:22,900 --> 00:47:35,740
on the Smothers Brothers show, and I was playing the Schlagenfrappe, which is a set of tuned cardboard tubes that you hear on the radio, and you hit yourself over the head with. Here's what it sounds like. Little bunny, hop, hop, hop.

123
00:47:38,720 --> 00:47:41,320
How your ears do flop, flop, flop.

124
00:47:44,400 --> 00:47:46,020
Good gracious, all the...

125
00:47:46,560 --> 00:47:57,960
So, at the rehearsal, the keyboard player in the band said, Hey, can I sample that? And all the band cracked up. He was kidding, but he could have done it. He could have recorded one note from me,

126
00:47:58,100 --> 00:48:10,320
and then the keyboard could reproduce that texture, that timbre, on any pitch in its range. You could play the Moonlight Sonata on the Schlagenfrappe, which in real life, as it were,

127
00:48:10,460 --> 00:48:20,560
would take probably about 60 cardboard tubes and 20 or 30 people to play them. Although I do sort of like that idea of an orchestra of Schlagenfrappes.

128
00:48:21,700 --> 00:48:33,960
Anyway, on a modern drum machine, unless you bought it at the Five and Dime store, what you hear is the sound of an actual drummer playing actual drums and cymbals and stuff. But only one note at a time.

129
00:48:34,060 --> 00:48:46,340
You program the patterns. So here's the story. Even in a live performance, if electricity is involved at all, you can't be sure what the source of the notes you're hearing is.

130
00:48:47,000 --> 00:48:57,920
And any sound from any source can be manipulated. And some of it's awful, and some of it's beautiful. And there's probably more productive cross influence

131
00:48:57,920 --> 00:49:08,740
between classical and non-classical music these days than there has been since the 1920s and 30s. And tape music and computer-generated music

132
00:49:08,740 --> 00:49:21,020
is no longer necessarily avant-garde. And here's a piece by John Adams, a very highly regarded classical composer, but you could imagine this album being in a pop bin.

133
00:49:21,640 --> 00:49:33,840
It's from an album called Who Do Zephyr? And the piece is called Bump. And you know, on a lot of other of John Adams' pieces, you might see credits like this. It's a piece that's under the baton of so-and-so

134
00:49:34,100 --> 00:49:46,340
with so-and-so as soloist. But the credits here read, composed and produced January 1992 to May 1993 in Berkeley, California, utilizing the Korg Wave Station,

135
00:49:46,680 --> 00:49:57,540
Yamaha Electone, Yamaha SY-77 and SY-99, Emu Systems Proteus 1 and Emacs 2, Kurzweil K2000,

136
00:49:58,160 --> 00:50:01,840
and Lexicon LXP-15. Take it away.

137
00:50:10,900 --> 00:50:56,080
And that's Shickly Mix for this week.

138
00:50:56,280 --> 00:51:07,640
Our program is made possible with funds provided by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, by the National Endowment for the Arts, and by this radio station and its members. Thank you, members.

139
00:51:08,200 --> 00:51:19,560
And not only that, our program is distributed by PRI, Public Radio International. We'll tell you in a moment how you can get an official playlist of all the music on today's program

140
00:51:19,560 --> 00:51:31,120
with album numbers and everything. Just refer to the program number. This is program number 112. And this is Peter Shickly saying goodbye and reminding you that it don't mean a thing

141
00:51:31,120 --> 00:51:36,480
if it ain't got that certain je ne sais quoi. You're looking good. See you next week.

142
00:57:59,520 --> 00:58:12,020
If you'd like a copy of that playlist I mentioned, send a stamped self-addressed envelope to Shickly Mix. That's S-C-H-I-C-K-E-L-E, Shickly Mix. Care of Public Radio International,

143
00:58:12,480 --> 00:58:24,460
100 North 6th Street, Suite 900A, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55403. PRI, Public Radio International.