Postdigital aesthetics invites us to consider what emerges through the interaction of musicians, artists and technology. Researchers in digital music have proposed the need for new disciplinary areas of study such as sound studies of education, and current research is exploring new pedagogical approaches to teaching music technology. Postdigital theory offers researchers a set of conceptual tools that can inform the development of appropriate pedagogies for music technology curricula. In an increasingly postdigital landscape there is value in questioning how postdigital theory might influence what – and how – we should teach in music technology courses.
This article builds on PhD research into postdigital aesthetics and complexity, and explores ways in which live, collaborative electronic music performance can blur the boundaries between the digital and the postdigital. The authors highlight the potential for postdigital theory to deconstruct the idea of ‘authorship’ in electronic music performance, and explain how integrating a postdigital aesthetic into electronic music performance can create new theoretical foundations for the discipline of music technology. In doing so, the authors argue that the discipline will be more effective at preparing graduates for the complex challenges of the 21st century workplace.
Written by Laura Lee and Tony Reeves | PUBLISHED ON 20th December 2023 | Photo COurtesy of Getty Images via Unsplash
Introduction
The production of ‘electronic’ music has changed significantly over the past thirty years (Mazierska, Gillon & Rigg, 2020). Whereas it was previously necessary to use a recording studio to produce records, now all that is needed is a laptop and an internet connection. For electronic artists, as opposed to more traditional musicians and bands, translating their recordings into a live performance is often challenging (Thomas, 2020). The bond between artist and audience is predominantly based on the audience’s love of the timbral qualities of the music they have heard while streaming the artist’s work, rather than on the artist’s performance of that work (Jaeger, 2003). Jaeger explains how ‘the advent of sampling, file- sharing networks, recorded sound files and programming, and the history of punk rock and free improvisation are all examples of how live performance has become problematized in the twenty-first century.’ (2003: 54). This problem can be interpreted as a problem of authorship, and has given rise to a small but growing body of research into what is termed ‘post-digital performance’ (Causey, 2016; Jarvis & Savage, 2021). In what has broadly become known as ‘digital’ music, notions of authorship, authenticity and virtuosity are all brought into question (Lee, 2023).
Post-digital theory is anti-reductive, and seeks to preserve the complexity of a phenomenon (Cramer, 2015). It provides a way of exploring the act of emergence which occurs when we interact with a cultural artefact such as a painting or a musical performance (Cham, 2007). In post-digital performance, new forms of instruments and interface design are emerging through practice-based research within sonic, new media and installation arts (Furniss, 2017; Halstead, 2009; Moralis, 2019). Outside academia, the use of new technologies as instruments has emerged from electronic dance music (EDM) and club culture, with turntables, loop pedals, applications such as Ableton Live and Traktor becoming central to the performance of electronic music (Butler, 2014; Kjus & Danielsen, 2016).
The increasing sophistication of electronic music performance raises questions for how we should approach the teaching of electronic music (Kuhn & Hein, 2021) . The academic discipline of ‘music technology’ is a relatively recent phenomenon, and has developed over the last twenty years in response to the growing demand from young people interested in music production (Born & Devine, 2016). But since its inception, music technology education has tended to focus predominantly on the act of music creation by an individual artist rather than on the performance of this music (ibid.). This is problematic for two reasons: firstly, the curriculum risks failing to reflect the performative aspects of contemporary electronic music culture, and secondly, it denies students the opportunity to learn transferable skills in collaboration that are valued in a wide range of industries (Klein & Lewandowski-Cox, 2019). These issues require us to consider questions such as: how should we approach the teaching of electronic music performance (McLennan & Sholer, 2019)? How might we reflect on methods of practice as research in music technology? How might we adapt the music technology curriculum to better reflect the contemporary realities of electronic music culture (Farnhill & Ronan, 2021)? And how might a music technology curriculum prepare graduates more effectively for the complex realities of the 21st century workplace?
Connecting music technology education with theories of post-digital and complexity offers a way to explore these issues. Applying a post-digital perspective to music technology education offers the potential to illuminate and theorise the interactive elements of electronic music production and performance. Importantly, post-digital theory offers the potential to unlock hidden dimensions in music technology education and enable the discipline to move beyond its dominant focus on helping students acquire music production skills.
Postdigital theory, deconstruction and electronic music
By its very nature, music performance is an act of interactivity. Even when a musician has no audience, the act of producing sound creates an interactive system whereby the musician interacts with and responds to the sound s/he is creating. When a musician performs as part of a group, each musician is continuously interacting with each other in order to co-create the performance. And when the group performs in front of an audience, another complex layer of interaction occurs as the group sees and responds to the audience’s reaction. This makes post-structuralism an ideal tool for apprehending the complexity of music performance, as ‘any interactive system, at least when in use, is ideologically plural and thus necessarily postmodern’ (Cham, 2007: 262). If a music performance is understood as an interactive system, the post-structuralism provides a tool for theorising the dynamics of that system. (Mazierska, Gillon, & Rigg, 2018).
One particular tool in the post-structuralist toolkit that can help us gain new perspectives on the music technology curriculum is deconstruction. This conceptual tool was developed by Jacques Derrida as a way to interrogate how meaning is constructed in language (Derrida, 1978). While deconstruction has been widely criticised for undermining the concept of objective truth, Niesche (2013) argues that these criticisms often obscure the power and potential of this tool for opening up new meanings and interpretations of concepts. Derrida, and other post-structuralist philosophers such as Michel Foucoult, sought to question – or deconstruct – how societies arrive at meanings through their use of language in order to open up new, previously unseen, interpretations. In this sense, deconstruction is ‘affirmative’ (Peters & Biesta, 2009).
Derrida’s concept of deconstruction emerged from post-structuralism as a way to critique the relationship between form and meaning in language use (Niesche, 2013). For Derrida, deconstruction involved unsettling conceptual opposites such as speech/writing and mind/body in order to reveal their interdependence (Biesta & Peters, 2009). This reveals how the construction of meaning relies on unstable foundations. Applied to music technology education, deconstruction questions established binaries like band/DJ, group/individual and collective/solitary that shape dominant notions of electronic music practice. It highlights their false divides and interconnections.
Notably, Derrida’s critique of rigid binaries parallels central tenets of postdigital theory, which strives to move past simplistic digital/analogue dichotomies (Cramer, 2015). Jandrić et al. (2018: 895) position postdigital analysis as an “exercise in deconstruction” which “uncovers hitherto invisible assembled structures and dynamics”.
This resonance suggests rich potential for applying post-structuralist deconstruction as a lens for postdigital analysis of music technology education. Binaries like composition/performance, individual/collective and human/technological reproduce limited perspectives on electronic music practice. A postdigital deconstruction of music technology pedagogies can counter dominant techno-romantic creator myths that over-emphasise the individual, human agency while backgrounding collaborative emergence. Postdigital theory aligned with deconstruction spotlights plural, unstable, interactive dynamics in meaning-making around music technology.
Complexity, emergence and music technology education
Current approaches to music technology education prioritise the importance of the individual programmer, the designer, the conceptualiser of a work. Such a person uses a range of digital material to produce a collage of sounds taken from a wide range of sources. The reductionist ideal would be all works crafted from a single machine, a single laptop. All control within the fingertips of the creator and easily reproduced. However, Cramer (2015) has argued that ‘the simplest definition of post-digital describes a media aesthetics which opposes … digital high-tech and hi-fidelity cleanness’ (2015:19). This definition is helpful in understanding the need to re-prioritise the messy, collaborative dynamics of electronic music performance. Through the use of techniques such as sampling, processing and effecting, a sound can be made unrecognisable from its source, time, place and owner.
Instead of streamlining compositional processes through the lens of ‘one-individual, one-device, one author’, a post-digital approach to music technology performance preserves – and prioritises – the messy, un-timecoded complexity that is generated through collaboration between multiple performers using musical devices. This complex relationship between the creator and other human and machine collaborators, further disrupts the notion of authorship in works. The act of performing electronic music can be viewed as an act of deconstruction and reconstruction, producing an interactive system involving processes of manipulation that deform sounds from the source of origins.
Yet while many music and sound courses in the post-compulsory sector develop the composition and production skills of individuals (Butler, 2014), much less space is allocated for teaching group performance or collaborative projects. Similarly, Gershon and Applebaum (2018) have argued for the need to broaden the conceptual base upon which music technology curricula are constructed. This suggests the need to deconstruct the dominant understanding of what music technology curricula should contain by deconstructing our interpretation of what an electronic musician ‘is’ – i.e. not someone who works largely in isolation, but someone who works much more frequently in collaboration with other artists (McLennan & Sholer, 2019).
Heelas and Woodhead (2001) observed how the focus on newness that is prized by contemporary classical music research has led to a focus on the importance of the individual composer as opposed to the community of intended listeners. They argue that this has led to a form of ‘homelessness’ for many avant-garde forms of art, including music. In many ways, the domain of electronic music performance has experienced a similar focus on the individual stemming from the rise of the DJ and producer to cult status during the 1990s and into the new millennium. We argue that this cult of individualism is prohibiting the effective teaching of electronic music performance in music technology curricula, as too great an emphasis is placed on the importance of the individual producer at the expense of the group performance.
It is here that the concept of emergence from complexity theory can help us theorise the performance aspect of the music technology curriculum, and focus more clearly on what emerges through the interaction of musicians and technology. Emergence enables us to consider behaviours that emerge through the interaction of components in a complex system (Fromm, 2004; Mitchell, 2008). Building on Cham’s interpretation of complexity theory in creative practice, post-digital theory provides a way of apprehending the dynamics of emergence that occur when musicians collaborate and interact with each other (Luigi, 2022; Zamm, Debener & Sebanz, 2023). This opens up new conceptual territory for how we might ‘teach for emergence’ in the music technology curriculum by considering more clearly the factors influencing interaction. Importantly, it also supports the argument that the complex dynamics of interaction are integral to electronic music performance, and builds on Cramer’s anti-reductionist argument for maintaining the plurality of authorship in post-digital environments.
In many higher education institutions, popular music is often excluded from the music curriculum (Tagg, 2011), and popular music journals require articles to focus on contextual content in order to be published. We argue that electronic music performance constitutes yet another conceptual leap for universities, meaning that there is little opportunity for researchers to develop the theoretical foundations of the music technology curriculum. Till (2017) has highlighted the potential for ‘music as research’ to open up new ways of theorising and developing the canon of ‘popular’ music. If, as Till argues, ‘popular music is embedded within popular cultural postmodernity’ (ibid, 4), electronic music – and particularly electronic music performance – are at the forefront of this postmodernist interpretation.
The argument that the context in which music is created is an integral aspect of its nature (McLary, S., 1989; Kerman, J., 1985; Subotnik, R. 1991; 1996) suggests that there is untapped potential for electronic music performance to be situated more clearly within its socio-cultural context. While cultural theory is regularly used to teach post-digital understanding and practice in art, it is less visible in the teaching of music technology.
Deconstructing the binaries of group/individual and band/DJ makes it possible to reconnect electronic music performance with its social and cultural history. In doing so, we are able to open up new conceptual territory in which to explore the potential for greater collaboration in the teaching of electronic music performance. By rejecting the reductionist position of the electronic artist as a ‘homeless’ individual, we can preserve the complex dynamics present in any collaborative performance and focus research more clearly on interaction between performers, and between performers and an audience. Theorising electronic music performance as ‘collaborative practice as research’ enables us to connect the music technology curriculum with an established academic approach to knowledge creation.
Implications for music technology education
‘We didn’t want to pick up guitars and write chord sequences. We didn’t want to sit in front of a computer either. We wanted a third thing, which involved playing and programming’
(Greenwood, in Rose, 2019:201)
The process of translating electronic music from the act of composition through to live performance is a growing research area in popular music studies. Musicians and audiences are becoming sensitive to a new virtuosity in performance, and increasingly attuned to the non-pitched and non-lyric elements of music (Fales, 2018). Fales discusses a form of analysis between the elements of unity and variety. Electronic music practice plays with elements of unity (on grid, fixed, digital) and with variety (off grid, improvised, free). In both the performance and the listening process, there is a continuous interplay of these elements, a virtuosity of timbre (Osborn, 2017; Sloan & Harding, 2019) and emergence in practice.
In performance analysis, the process is as important as the output itself as the composer and audience react to each other. Taking work produced in a studio to the stage requires a consideration of how an audience will experience the work, and a post-digital perspective on music technology education enables a theoretical exploration of this dynamic. New forms of collaboration and interaction developed through electronic mediated performance practice enable practice-based research strategies and reflection through the making of post-digital works. While there is huge variety in how artists create and perform music, ‘one consistent condition is their context in time and space. The presence of an audience, of course, sets the stage apart from the studio’ (Danielsen & Kjus, 2016:325). Deconstructing the concept of what a performance involves affords an opportunity to clarify the complex dynamics at play, This opens up ways to make learning and assessing these dynamics a greater part of the core curriculum of music technology education (McLennan & Sholer, 2019).
Positioning electronic music performance at the heart of the music technology curriculum offers a way to respond to Butler’s (2014) observation that many music technology courses focus predominantly on the importance of the individual artist. The anti-reductionist nature of post-digital thinking that Cramer (2015) describes supports the argument for shifting the focus of the music technology curriculum away from the individual artist and towards collaborative performance. Preserving the complexity of interaction between performers, technology and audience – and teaching the dynamics of this complexity – can unlock untapped potential in music technology curricula (Gershon & Applebaum, 2018).
Deconstructing the importance of the individual performer and placing greater emphasis on collaboration and interaction opens up the possibility of making teamwork a much greater part of music technology education. As Klein and Lewandowski-Cox (2019) highlight, the ability to work effectively in teams is one of the key skills sought by employers. Placing greater emphasis on collaboration would lay the foundations for teaching complex dynamics of communication, responsiveness and interaction through electronic music performance. Pushing back against the reductionist nature of many music technology courses could create space to integrate the teaching of the soft skills valued by employers, including leadership, cross-cultural interaction, diversity and risk-taking – all integral aspects of musical performance (Ford & Sasaki, 2021).
Shifting the focus of the curriculum towards collaboration would also require a shift in assessment practices. Teaching collaboration and interaction skills more directly would enable assessment of students’ ability to demonstrate valuable competencies like negotiation, conflict resolution and professionalism. These are often by-products of music technology education and can be viewed as part of the ‘hidden curriculum’ in the discipline (Assor & Gordon, 1987). Positioning complexity theory more centrally opens opportunities to explicitly teach and rigorously assess the dynamics of interaction.
Reconnecting music technology education with its performative elements also holds potential to revalue the ‘craft’ aspect of the discipline. Just as jazz musicians learned their craft through jamming with more skilled performers, music technology students could more effectively develop confidence, technical aptitude and individual style if greater emphasis was placed on performance and collaboration (McLennan & Sholer, 2019).
Further, positioning electronic music performance as practice-based research offers possibilities for greater scholarly investigation within music technology education itself. Such an approach can open up new ways of theorising and developing the canon of popular music studies to include electronic music at the cutting edge of postmodernist interpretation (Till, 2017). This echoes calls for broadening the conceptual bases underpinning music technology curricula (Gershon & Applebaum, 2018; Kuhn & Hein, 2021).
Specific strategies for achieving a more performance-oriented curriculum include:
- Incorporating more opportunities for collaborative composition, recording and live performance projects across courses (Butler, 2014)
- Designing courses specifically focused on electronic music performance, ensemble skills and improvisation techniques
- Using jam sessions, recitals and informal peer learning to build collaborative musical skills (McLennan & Sholer, 2019)
- Assessing group-based electronic performances as well as individual compositions
- Explicitly teaching and assessing soft skills such as communication, teamwork and conflict resolution through electronic music performance
- Involving students in scholarship around electronic music performance via practice-based research projects
Such initiatives would work towards placing musical collaboration and interactivity at the heart of music technology education. Alongside scholarly investigation, this reorientation around performance and emergence holds significant potential for developing more sophisticated theoretical and practical foundations for music technology education.
Conclusion
In this article, we have demonstrated how applying a post-digital perspective to the music technology curriculum creates opportunities to reinvigorate the discipline. By combining post-digital theory with concepts from complexity and post-structuralism, we have argued that there is significant untapped potential in music technology education that can be unlocked by placing greater emphasis on electronic music performance. In the same way that connecting jazz with the blues added a historical canon that grounded the style, aligning music technology education with post-digital theory offers the potential to develop a more powerful theoretical and conceptual engine to drive the evolution of the discipline.
Further research would aim to illuminate specific pedagogies and approaches to curriculum design that explore and exploit the potential of electronic music performance. By grounding music technology education in post-digital theory, there is an opportunity to re-theorise the underlying concepts of the discipline in order to illuminate new areas and opportunities for curriculum development.
About the authors
Laura Lee is a creative practitioner, guitarist, composer and performer with an interdisciplinary approach to arts, music and collaboration. She is guitarist in band Parachute for Gordo and has toured in UK and Europe with such festivals ArcTanGent and Portals within the math, post and experimental rock music scene. She is a researcher, and lectures at The University for the Creative Arts, UK, and Berlin School of Popular Arts, Germany in Music Composition and Technology, Audio Design, Computing and the Arts and Creative Industries Management.
Tony Reeves is the editor of JUICE and managing director of Ding Learning, a creative learning design agency. Prior to founding Ding, Tony worked in higher education as a learning technologist and course leader for a Postgraduate Certificate in Creative Education. Tony is also co-founder of the Centre for Learning Design, a collaboration with Woxsen University working to promote the value of learning design in India and South Asia. He produces and performs electronic music under the name Rainbow Chaser.
Bibliography
Assor, A. and Gordon, D. (1987) The implicit learning theory of hidden curriculum research. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 19(4), pp. 329-339
Barthes, R. (1977) Image, music, text. London: Fontana.
Biesta, G. (2009) Good education in an age of measurement: on the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability (formerly: Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education). 21(1) pp.33–46.
Brøvig-Hanssen, R. and Danielsen, A. (2016) Digital Signatures: The Impact of Digitization on Popular Music Sound. MIT Press
Born, G. and Devine, K. (2016) Gender, Creativity and Education in Digital Musics and Sound Art. Contemporary Music Review 35 (1) pp.1–20.
Butler, M. J. (2014) Playing with something that runs : technology, improvisation, and composition in DJ and laptop performance. New York: Oxford University Press.
Causey, M. (2016) Postdigital performance. Theatre Journal. 68(3), pp.427-441
Cham, K. (2007) Reconstruction theory: Designing the space of possibility in complex media. International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media. 3(2&3), pp.253-267
Cramer, F. (2015) What Is ‘Post-digital’? In: Berry, D.M. and Dieter, M. (eds.) Postdigital Aesthetics: Art, Computation and Design. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp.12–26.
Derrida, J. (2021) Writing and Difference.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
De Saussure, F. (1974) Course in General Linguistics. London, UK: Fontana.
Eno, B. (2004) The Studio as a Compositional Tool. In: Cox, C. and Warner, D. (eds.) Audio Culture: Readings in Modern Music. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. pp.127–130.
Fales, C. (2018)’Hearing Timbre – Perceptual Learning among Early Bay Area Ravers. In:Fink, R.W. et al. (eds.) The Relentless Pursuit of Tone: Timbre in Popular Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp.21–42.
Farnhill, E. and Ronan, M (2021) The Pandemic Pilot: Are Music Technology Degrees Ready For Online Learning? Audio Engineering Society Convention, Paper 10496 (May 2021).
Ford, D.R. and Sasaki, M., 2021. Listening like a postdigital human: The politics and knowledge of noise. Postdigital Humans: Transitions, Transformations and Transcendence, pp.111-124.
Fromm, J. (2004) The Emergence of Complexity. Kassel University Press, GmbH.
Fuller, S. (2019) Against Academic Rentiership: a Radical Critique of the Knowledge Economy. Postdigital Science and Education 1 (2) pp.335–356.
Furniss, P. (2017) The present performer A humanised augmented practice of the clarinet. [Thesis] The University of Edinburgh.
Gershon, W. S., & Applebaum, P. (2018). Resounding education: Sonic instigations, reverberating foundations. Educational Studies, 54(4), 357-366
Halstead, S. (2009) After Techno and Rave : Status and Validity in Post Dance Music. [Ph.D.] University of Surrey (United Kingdom).
Jarvis, L. And Savage, K. (2021) Avatars, Activism and Postdigital Performance: Precarious Intermedial Identities. London, UK: Bloomsbury
Jaeger, T. (2003) The (Anti-)Laptop Aesthetic. Contemporary Music Review. 22(4) pp.53–57.
Kerman, J. (1985) Contemplating Music: Challenges to Musicology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kjus, Y. and Danielsen, A. (2016) Live mediation: performing concerts using studio technology. Popular Music. 35(3) pp.320–337. At:
Klein, E. And Lewandowski-Cox, J. (2019) Music Technology and Future Work Skills 2020: An employability mapping of Australian undergraduate music technology curriculum. International Journal of Music Education. 37(4), pp.646-653.
Kreutz, G. Schubert, E. and Mitchell, L. (2008) Cognitive Styles of Music Listening. Music Perception. 26(1) pp.57–73.
Kuhn, W. And Hein, W. (2021) Electronic Music School: A Contemporary Approach to Teaching Musical Creativity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
Lee, L (2023) Post-rock composition and performance: Authenticity, Liveness, Creativity and Technology. [Ph.D.] University for the Creative Arts.
Marino, Luigi (2022). Revisiting a relational approach to Electronic music performance. University of Birmingham. Ph.D.
Marshall, W. (2009) Reviewed Work(s): Unlocking the Groove: Rhythm, Meter, and Musical Design in Electronic Dance Music by Mark J. Butler. Music Theory Spectrum. 31(1) pp.192–999.
Mason, C. et al. (2011) Does Education Matter? The Characteristics and Performance of Businesses Started by Recent University Graduates. Entrepreneurship Research in Europe. At:
Mazierska, E. et al. (2020) The Future of Live Music. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
Mazierska, E., Gillon, L. and Rigg, T. (2018) Popular Music in the Post-Digital Age: Politics, Economy, Culture and Technology. (s.l.): Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
McKenney, S. and Reeves, T. C. (2018) Conducting Educational Design Research. (2nd ed.) London: Routledge.
McLary, S. (1989) Terminal Prestige: The Case of Avant-Garde Composition. Cultural Critique. 12, pp.57-81.
McLennan, R. And Sholer, R. (2019) New Horizons in Music Technology Performance Education. Proceedings of the Edulearn19 Conference, 1st-3rd July 2019, Palma, Mallorca, Spin
Mohan, A. and Thomas, E. (2020) Effect of background music and the cultural preference to music on adolescents’ task performance. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth. 25(1) pp.562–573.
Moralis, C. (2019) Live popular Electronic music ‘performable recordings’. [doctoral] University of West London.
Niesche, R. (2014) Deconstructing Educational Leadership: Derrida and Lyotard. London & New York: Routledge
Osborn, B. (2017) Everything in Its Right Place: Analyzing Radiohead. Oxford University Press.
Panay, P. A. and Hendrix, R. M. (2021) Two Beats Ahead: What Musical Minds Teach Us About Innovation. Dublin: Penguin Random House UK
Peters, M. A. and Biesta, G. (2021) Derrida, Deconstruction, and the Politics of Pedagogy. New York: Peter Lang Verlag.
Rose, P. (2019) Radiohead: Music for a Global Future. Washington, DC:.
Reeves, T. (2018) Learning in adaptive spaces: How customer experience professionals experience learning during technology-mediated interaction, and implications for organisational learning. PhD Thesis, Lancaster University.
Sloan, N. and Harding, C. (2019) Switched On Pop: How Popular Music Works, and Why it Matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Subotnik, R.R. (1991) Developing Variations: Style and Ideology in Western Music. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Tagg, P. 2011. Caught on the Back Foot: Epistemic Inertia and Visible Music. IASPM Journal. 2(1-2), pp.3-18. At: http://dx.doi.org/10.5429/2079-3871(2011)v2i1-2.2en
Till, R. (2017) Popular Music Practice: Music as Research. Introduction to the Special Issue. IASPM Journal. 7(2) pp.2–7.
Whitchurch, C., 2008. Shifting identities and blurring boundaries: The emergence of third space professionals in UK higher education. Higher education quarterly, 62(4), pp.377-396.
Zamm, A., Debener, S. & Sebanz, N. (2023) The spontaneous emergence of rhythmic coordination in turn taking. Scientific Reports, 13, 3259.
JUICE 