Brian Wilson 2016 Tour Thread (Pet Sounds 50th Anniversary Tour)

[Rob Dean]

Was that at the meet and greet, Rob?

Hi Ed, no a bit of strategic planning - I knew what time the sound check was to take place so awaited the Tour Bus's by the stage door

Eh, A LOT cheaper than the meet and greet package 

[Rob Dean]

A few more pics from Bristol

[
upload photos

[
screen capture


img hosting

[
upload pic


image free hosting

[Emily]

Rob Dean and Cliff1000UK, thanks for the great images and descriptions. You guys each have some great memorabilia. Rob, do you have the artist or did you take the picture on site?
Debbie KL, thanks for linking to the excellent review. It is such a great show.

Hi Emily, sorry I don't understand the question (too long a day yesterday, no doubt)
 

No - sorry - that was my phone thinking it's smarter than me. I meant set list!

Ok    I was stage hogging at the end and a certain Mr Jardine (Snr) gave me the set-list 

What a cool thing to have!

[Cliff1000uk]

Great photos, Rob. Yes-after nearly an hour of waiting to get into the soundcheck, I wasn't sure what I was most jealous of-your t-shirt or the pint you were holding!

[Marty Castillo]

then it puts everything on 'thin ice' considering that 'Pet Sounds' is a Beach Boys album, not a Brian Wilson solo record, even behind the smoke and mirrors that it is.  They should not have used any of the pics from the photo shoot that included Brian with his brothers, cousin, Al or Bruce.  That has added fuel to the fire.  They should have done new shots with Al and the guys or just used single Brian pics.  This whole photoshoping Mike n Bruce out is childish and using Carl and Dennis is only supporting Brian, but who would know where those brothers would have stood these days. There has been a long time between drinks since Carl n Dennis have gone.

If you've read some of Mike's lawsuit regarding Brian's "Smile" album, you're making what sound to me like slight variations on Mike's (failed) arguments, which is that "using" a Beach Boys product from the past to promote a current Brian Wilson product is somehow not allowed, or that the original "creators" of that project are somehow entitled to a cut of the proceeds or something.

Brian has to pay whomever owns the copyrights to the PS photo shoot. I'm guessing that's Capitol/UME, but I don't know for sure. He *may* have to pay individuals in those pictures for using their likeness; I'm not sure how that works for things like programs. In any event, that's it. There's no "thin ice" regarding PS being a BB album. If there was, Brian wouldn't have undertaken numerous PS tours starting 16 years ago. And again, the "it was a BB project" argument was the crux of some of the "Smile" lawsuit stuff from the mid-2000s, and those arguments all failed as far as I know. The copyright holders to the music and photos and artwork and all of that are who need to be addressed, not the original artist.

Brian could present an entire Foghat album in concert if he wanted to, and as long as all proper licensing of photos and royalties for musical performances are paid, there's nothing wrong with that.

Also, again are we sure Mike *and* Bruce have been "photoshopped" out of photos? Or have they just chosen photos and cropped photos? Further, Bruce wasn't even in many of the shots from the PS photo shoot (including, as I'm sure we all know, the cover shot, but also many other shots); they did a specific set of photos during that '66 photo shoot without Bruce, so I'm not sure which shots were used and whether cropping of Bruce was even necessary.

And as far as I'm concerned, if Al (and the estate of Carl and Dennis if their permission is needed) have no problem with Brian using their likenesses, Brian shouldn't have to omit them as well just because Mike was litigious in this regard and on this topic back in 2005.

I'm curious if Brian needs permission through BRI and/or Capitol to do a "Pet Sounds" tour? On the flipside, what would stop Mike & Bruce from billing their tour as Pet Sounds 50th Anniversary? I don't want to get into the appropriateness, but more the legality. Keep in mind I know nothing when it comes to "rights". Could there theoretically be dueling tours billed as "Pet Sounds" as long as Capitol signed off and appropriate fees paid?

[Emily]

then it puts everything on 'thin ice' considering that 'Pet Sounds' is a Beach Boys album, not a Brian Wilson solo record, even behind the smoke and mirrors that it is.  They should not have used any of the pics from the photo shoot that included Brian with his brothers, cousin, Al or Bruce.  That has added fuel to the fire.  They should have done new shots with Al and the guys or just used single Brian pics.  This whole photoshoping Mike n Bruce out is childish and using Carl and Dennis is only supporting Brian, but who would know where those brothers would have stood these days. There has been a long time between drinks since Carl n Dennis have gone.

If you've read some of Mike's lawsuit regarding Brian's "Smile" album, you're making what sound to me like slight variations on Mike's (failed) arguments, which is that "using" a Beach Boys product from the past to promote a current Brian Wilson product is somehow not allowed, or that the original "creators" of that project are somehow entitled to a cut of the proceeds or something.

Brian has to pay whomever owns the copyrights to the PS photo shoot. I'm guessing that's Capitol/UME, but I don't know for sure. He *may* have to pay individuals in those pictures for using their likeness; I'm not sure how that works for things like programs. In any event, that's it. There's no "thin ice" regarding PS being a BB album. If there was, Brian wouldn't have undertaken numerous PS tours starting 16 years ago. And again, the "it was a BB project" argument was the crux of some of the "Smile" lawsuit stuff from the mid-2000s, and those arguments all failed as far as I know. The copyright holders to the music and photos and artwork and all of that are who need to be addressed, not the original artist.

Brian could present an entire Foghat album in concert if he wanted to, and as long as all proper licensing of photos and royalties for musical performances are paid, there's nothing wrong with that.

Also, again are we sure Mike *and* Bruce have been "photoshopped" out of photos? Or have they just chosen photos and cropped photos? Further, Bruce wasn't even in many of the shots from the PS photo shoot (including, as I'm sure we all know, the cover shot, but also many other shots); they did a specific set of photos during that '66 photo shoot without Bruce, so I'm not sure which shots were used and whether cropping of Bruce was even necessary.

And as far as I'm concerned, if Al (and the estate of Carl and Dennis if their permission is needed) have no problem with Brian using their likenesses, Brian shouldn't have to omit them as well just because Mike was litigious in this regard and on this topic back in 2005.

I'm curious if Brian needs permission through BRI and/or Capitol to do a "Pet Sounds" tour? On the flipside, what would stop Mike & Bruce from billing their tour as Pet Sounds 50th Anniversary? I don't want to get into the appropriateness, but more the legality. Keep in mind I know nothing when it comes to "rights". Could there theoretically be dueling tours billed as "Pet Sounds" as long as Capitol signed off and appropriate fees paid?

Legally, I think you or I could go ahead and do a Pet Sounds tour, meaning a tour that covers all the songs of Pet Sounds in order. In terms of labelling it a "Pet Sounds" tour, there would be room for the right judge to allow a suit if someone had copyrighted a tour name. But it would be a really gray area depending on whether the name belonged to the music under that title or whether the name belonged to the pre-existing tour. One could sue but it's really argument- and judge-dependent whether one would win. Most likely using the term "Pet Sounds" would fly but using the term "Pet Sounds 50th Anniversary Tour," if that's copywritten, would not fly.

[HeyJude]

I'm curious if Brian needs permission through BRI and/or Capitol to do a "Pet Sounds" tour? On the flipside, what would stop Mike & Bruce from billing their tour as Pet Sounds 50th Anniversary? I don't want to get into the appropriateness, but more the legality. Keep in mind I know nothing when it comes to "rights". Could there theoretically be dueling tours billed as "Pet Sounds" as long as Capitol signed off and appropriate fees paid?

I don't think any clearances are needed. I've seen club bands present a full album from artists and advertise it as such.

Certainly, Brian can perform the PS album in its entirety (or any other album). He can perform any song that has been published. His setlist is not bound by anything other than the song being published and standard royalties paid to all publishers.

Concerning advertising it as a "Pet Sounds" tour, I'm not sure any clearances would be needed. Capitol owns the original album, not BRI, so *if* permission were needed, it would more likely be from Capitol rather than BRI. And again, I think Paul McCartney could go out and do a "Paul McCartney Presents The MIU Album" tour and it would be fine. It's truly a descriptive tour title.

Once the "Beach Boys" trademark starts being used in a band's title or a tour's title, then it becomes a more grey area. (Ask Al Jardine about that!). But Brian's tour is a "Pet Sounds 50th Anniversary Tour." No BB references on the ticket or anything. Brian is allowed to say he's performing Beach Boys songs in a descriptive sense. So you can have a poster than says "Brian Wilson Presents Pet Sounds", and then below that text referencing that the show will include Al and Blondie, and that he will be performing Beach Boys classics and deep cuts, etc.

Al Jardine referenced in an interview a year or two ago that he and Brian had been warned (e.g. perhaps a "friendly reminder letter" from someone's legal counsel) to be careful how they bill the Brian/Al shows and to ensure it is not mistaken for a "Beach Boys" concert. (Hopefully they told anyone who sent such a letter to do something more creative with that letter).

With anything there is the possibility of litigation. But I think Brian touring an album is fine, and titling the tour after the album is acceptable as it is descriptive.

[HeyJude]

And again, let's remember that there was some scuttle involving "Smile" being a "Beach Boys" product originally (e.g. the band and label funding the original sessions) when that "Smile" related lawsuit was flying around 2005 or so. As I recall, those sorts of claims went nowhere.

In addition, both Capitol and BRI have standing, ongoing relationships with Brian such that I doubt, even if they thought they had a chance to go after Brian for using the "PS" title for his tour, they would ever pursue such a thing.

[Theydon Bois]

I'm curious if Brian needs permission through BRI and/or Capitol to do a "Pet Sounds" tour? On the flipside, what would stop Mike & Bruce from billing their tour as Pet Sounds 50th Anniversary? I don't want to get into the appropriateness, but more the legality. Keep in mind I know nothing when it comes to "rights". Could there theoretically be dueling tours billed as "Pet Sounds" as long as Capitol signed off and appropriate fees paid?

I don't think any clearances are needed. I've seen club bands present a full album from artists and advertise it as such.

Certainly, Brian can perform the PS album in its entirety (or any other album). He can perform any song that has been published. His setlist is not bound by anything other than the song being published and standard royalties paid to all publishers.

Concerning advertising it as a "Pet Sounds" tour, I'm not sure any clearances would be needed. Capitol owns the original album, not BRI, so *if* permission were needed, it would more likely be from Capitol rather than BRI. And again, I think Paul McCartney could go out and do a "Paul McCartney Presents The MIU Album" tour and it would be fine. It's truly a descriptive tour title.

It would be fun to see Brian touring the 1985 album on that basis, as a test case.

[HeyJude]

I'm curious if Brian needs permission through BRI and/or Capitol to do a "Pet Sounds" tour? On the flipside, what would stop Mike & Bruce from billing their tour as Pet Sounds 50th Anniversary? I don't want to get into the appropriateness, but more the legality. Keep in mind I know nothing when it comes to "rights". Could there theoretically be dueling tours billed as "Pet Sounds" as long as Capitol signed off and appropriate fees paid?

I don't think any clearances are needed. I've seen club bands present a full album from artists and advertise it as such.

Certainly, Brian can perform the PS album in its entirety (or any other album). He can perform any song that has been published. His setlist is not bound by anything other than the song being published and standard royalties paid to all publishers.

Concerning advertising it as a "Pet Sounds" tour, I'm not sure any clearances would be needed. Capitol owns the original album, not BRI, so *if* permission were needed, it would more likely be from Capitol rather than BRI. And again, I think Paul McCartney could go out and do a "Paul McCartney Presents The MIU Album" tour and it would be fine. It's truly a descriptive tour title.

It would be fun to see Brian touring the 1985 album on that basis, as a test case.

Very good point!

"Brian Wilson Presents The Beach Boys"

And Mike can tour Brian's 88 album. "The Beach Boys Present Brian Wilson."

[Shady]

The Bristol gig got trashed by the telegraph, called the "saddest gig ever".

Not going to bother linking to it but it got me pretty angry...till i remembered nobody cares about the telegraph

[Marty Castillo]

Thanks for the replies Emily and HeyJude!

[Emily]

The Bristol gig got trashed by the telegraph, called the "saddest gig ever".

Not going to bother linking to it but it got me pretty angry...till i remembered nobody cares about the telegraph

Normally, I'm indifferent to the brouhaha over negative reviews. I don't care if someone doesn't like what I like. But that piece -  wth? That was some nasty, off-base sh*t.

[CarlTheVoice]

It's great to see everyone's reviews on the recent gigs, looking forward to Saturday now!

I have emailed the promoter but no reply yet so I wondered if any of the posters who went to Bristol could help?

I have booked the meet and greet package at the Palladium but was quite surprised to see the arrival time was 3:30! I have a 6 week old baby who would need to be fed by someone else and I am not sure my baby will be happy doing that for the whole afternoon and evening! I wondered if there were any breaks in between check in, sound check, meeting that I could go and feed my baby in? Are you allowed to go off as long as you return for a certain time?

Thanks!

[Cliff1000uk]

It's great to see everyone's reviews on the recent gigs, looking forward to Saturday now!

I have emailed the promoter but no reply yet so I wondered if any of the posters who went to Bristol could help?

I have booked the meet and greet package at the Palladium but was quite surprised to see the arrival time was 3:30! I have a 6 week old baby who would need to be fed by someone else and I am not sure my baby will be happy doing that for the whole afternoon and evening! I wondered if there were any breaks in between check in, sound check, meeting that I could go and feed my baby in? Are you allowed to go off as long as you return for a certain time?

Thanks!

Hi,

We arrived for 3.30pm and was met around 3.45pm by the lady in charge who 'booked' us in. Due to 'techincal issues', we had to wait nearly an hour to go in. After soundcheck, we immediately got shown into a room for the meet and greet but had to wait about 10mins for Brian to arrive.
I would just mention your situation to the lady (she's quite short with long dark hair) and I'm sure you would be able to escape between the soundcheck and meet and greet*





*I am not a qualified meet and greet organiser and so can only advise what would be sensible to someone with a 6 week baby who had spent £275 on a package!

[Rentatris]

Hey guys - quick question for people who've booked the meet and greet. I've booked for Manchester and I've had my normal ticket through the post but I don't have anything that tells me time or accreditation for the meet n greet. Is this normal? Should I be worried? If it's not normal who should I contact? Ticket vendor, venue or bw website?

Cheers in advance

[Cliff1000uk]

Hey guys - quick question for people who've booked the meet and greet. I've booked for Manchester and I've had my normal ticket through the post but I don't have anything that tells me time or accreditation for the meet n greet. Is this normal? Should I be worried? If it's not normal who should I contact? Ticket vendor, venue or bw website?

Cheers in advance

I got an email about a week before. This is the address you should contact: vipinfouk@artistarenasupport.com

Cheers

[Rentatris]

Hey guys - quick question for people who've booked the meet and greet. I've booked for Manchester and I've had my normal ticket through the post but I don't have anything that tells me time or accreditation for the meet n greet. Is this normal? Should I be worried? If it's not normal who should I contact? Ticket vendor, venue or bw website?

Cheers in advance

I got an email about a week before. This is the address you should contact: vipinfouk@artistarenasupport.com

Cheers

Brilliant mate, I'll drop them a message now. Thanks!!

[HeyJude]

The Telegraph piece is kind of a hit piece. We've read a number of reviews like this in the past. The guy doesn't get it. His comments on Brian's stage demeanor are *not* the tells that he doesn't get it, though. I've always understood why the "uninitiated" might find Brian's stage presence odd and uncomfortable. The tells that it's a hit piece and the guy  is going out of his way to be negative about everything are his comments on the 70s BB material ("middle of the road rockers"), and going to extra lengths to chide even Al Jardine (he can't sing on mic? Wtf is he talking about? What a *weird* criticism to make).

A look at his other works on the Telegraph website show most of his other stuff is standard "blogger" level material, like reviewing the "X Files" revival episodes (shooting fish a barrel that one is, but I won't go off topic!). It doesn't look like he's a music or concert reviewer especially, and even the website uses this generic description of him: "Tim Martin is a journalist and book critic for the Telegraph."

I'm not saying there's not a place for any and all topics; I certainly have spent too much time on websites finding out when they're going to bring back the Chili Cheese Burrito to Taco Bell that will surely kill my gall bladder. But I don't know how much I should weight a concert review from a guy who doesn't have any other apparent concert reviews under his name on the Telegraph website, and despite being described as a "book critic" seems to mostly review TV shows, and has an article titled: "Have you ever Skyped your dog? Choose the Right Puppy for You - review." Oh, he did break this news: "Gillian Anderson: 'I've never been romantically involved with David Duchovny’"   

[MyDrKnowsItKeepsMeCalm]

The Telegraph piece is kind of a hit piece. We've read a number of reviews like this in the past. The guy doesn't get it.

I hear the X-Files forums are saying much the same thing about him.   

[HeyJude]

The Telegraph piece is kind of a hit piece. We've read a number of reviews like this in the past. The guy doesn't get it.

I hear the X-Files forums are saying much the same thing about him.   

Ironically, I'd say the majority of X-Files fans didn't dig the new miniseries. Like I said, criticizing that is fish-in-a-barrel status as far as I'm concerned. Which I think is kind of true of criticizing Brian's stage presence. Again, the guy doesn't get it, and some folks don't get it and that's okay.

A negative review doesn't bother me. I think seemingly fake incredulity is what bothers me. The guy either *knows* Brian's deal and is choosing to not give the show the right context, in which case he's just kind of being a d**k, or he doesn't know Brian's deal and then maybe isn't the guy to write the review.

[Cam Mott]

I don't think it is a hatchet job, it is a guy going by appearances (which can be deceiving as his Grandma probably told him) and is doing Brian and his readers a dis-service by not doing his homework.

[Smilin Ed H]

Was that at the meet and greet, Rob?

Hi Ed, no a bit of strategic planning - I knew what time the sound check was to take place so awaited the Tour Bus's by the stage door

Eh, A LOT cheaper than the meet and greet package 

Thanks!

[guitarfool2002]

The Telegraph piece is kind of a hit piece. We've read a number of reviews like this in the past. The guy doesn't get it. His comments on Brian's stage demeanor are *not* the tells that he doesn't get it, though. I've always understood why the "uninitiated" might find Brian's stage presence odd and uncomfortable. The tells that it's a hit piece and the guy  is going out of his way to be negative about everything are his comments on the 70s BB material ("middle of the road rockers"), and going to extra lengths to chide even Al Jardine (he can't sing on mic? Wtf is he talking about? What a *weird* criticism to make).

A look at his other works on the Telegraph website show most of his other stuff is standard "blogger" level material, like reviewing the "X Files" revival episodes (shooting fish a barrel that one is, but I won't go off topic!). It doesn't look like he's a music or concert reviewer especially, and even the website uses this generic description of him: "Tim Martin is a journalist and book critic for the Telegraph."

I'm not saying there's not a place for any and all topics; I certainly have spent too much time on websites finding out when they're going to bring back the Chili Cheese Burrito to Taco Bell that will surely kill my gall bladder. But I don't know how much I should weight a concert review from a guy who doesn't have any other apparent concert reviews under his name on the Telegraph website, and despite being described as a "book critic" seems to mostly review TV shows, and has an article titled: "Have you ever Skyped your dog? Choose the Right Puppy for You - review." Oh, he did break this news: "Gillian Anderson: 'I've never been romantically involved with David Duchovny’"   

I agree. It felt like a hit piece, not because the reviewer apparently didn't like the show but because some of the no-brainer points that seem to have gone over his head. At the same time why would a media outlet send someone inexperienced in writing music reviews to cover a concert in the first place? Did they not have a popular music reviewer available, or is that an area they farm out to syndicated columns not wanted to have a music writer (non-classical) on the payroll and instead feel that the younger generation blogger/freelancer credo is good enough for their readership? Odd choice.

A negative review doesn't bother me. I think seemingly fake incredulity is what bothers me. The guy either *knows* Brian's deal and is choosing to not give the show the right context, in which case he's just kind of being a d**k, or he doesn't know Brian's deal and then maybe isn't the guy to write the review.

Possibility #3 - The writer just doesn't dig the music, the performers, or all of the above.
Possibility #4 - It was a hit piece.

Some of this reminded me of this earlier post I wrote about the responsibility and expectations of reviewers and reviews in general, once they - like this piece - are elevated to an "official" status by publication rather than blog entries anyone online can do. When the official reviewers and reviews start sounding and reading like cut-rate blogging, that's a red flag.

The difference is a review (or reviewers) has or should be expected to have the responsibility to the readers to come from a place of knowledge or experience when offering the review. A review is opinion, yes, but if a reviewer is going to publish and take it to a different level than simply offering opinions as any random person will do when experiencing something and offering a reaction to it, they should at least be more knowledgeable and aware of the area they're reviewing than a random person reacting to something. Two examples:

The classical and jazz music worlds can be a little stuffy, a little pretentious in the wrong hands, of course. But would a publication or anyone for that matter hire and send a writer/reviewer whose expertise is punk rock and alternative music who has little or no knowledge of jazz or classical music to review a jazz concert featuring the compositions of Charles Mingus or critique a classical concert featuring the works of Stravinsky when that writer is unfamiliar with the bodies of work from those composers and has no frame of reference other than a gut-level reaction upon hearing it? Would those publications or even that writer then expect their readers to weigh the writings and critiques of someone totally unfamiliar with those genres of music and the history of the music as anywhere close to the words of someone who instead has a working knowledge of who and what they're writing about?

It separates the responsibility if not the burden of both the reviewer and the outlet that publishes the review as journalism and critical or analytical music writing from anyone's ability to start a blog or post on any online outlet and post opinions 'til the cows come home. But which are presented as informed opinions and analysis versus gut-level reactions?

The issues John Manning raised regarding commercial reviews and market-specific publications publishing reviews applies as well to something as specific as the world of guitar gear and equipment.

The trend has been for years to emulate classic gear that has since become valued out of the range of most players who are not successful beyond the norm or else the weekend warriors who work and do business on the golf course during the week and like to unwind on weekends over cigar and whiskey get-togethers while strumming Skynrd tunes on a '59 Les Paul through a '65 blackface Fender Twin that their regular jobs could afford to finance.

So companies make products like affordable plug-ins for various devices like iPhones, iPads, and any number of DAW recording setups that are supposed to offer the sound of a '65 Fender Twin.

If I read a review of such a product emulating a '65 Fender Twin, I would expect that the reviewer took the time and effort to have either plugged into an actual vintage '65 Twin for a true A/B comparison, or at least have had previous experience either owning or playing through a real '65 Twin at some point in order to form the opinion on which the review is based.

If they did not, then both praising this emulation of a '65 Twin by saying "I plugged into this plug-in and it nailed the sound of a '65 Twin!" or "this plug-in falls short of sounding like a real '65 Twin" is simply dishonest and not coming from a place of knowledge. It's just someone's gut-level reaction and should not be elevated to being presented as a knowledgeable review.

And my own gut-level feeling is that some of the reviewers who might be writing about the latest plug-ins to emulate a '65 Twin could be put into a room and given a blind test, where a real '65 blackface Twin, a 70's master-volume silverface Twin, an 80's red-knob Twin, and a Line 6 Pod set to the Twin preset would not be distinguishable. Yet, players who know their field of work and are legitimately knowledgeable about vintage amps could probably pick them out quite easily because they know the differences in sound and response between each.

So, a review has to come from a place of knowledge and hands-on experience, and there is or should still be a place in the market for that versus anyone who wants to start a blog account to post opinion after opinion coming from far less an authoritative or knowledgeable position.

Today:

I don't think it is a hatchet job, it is a guy going by appearances (which can be deceiving as his Grandma probably told him) and is doing Brian and his readers a dis-service by not doing his homework.

Last week:

I guess you can still be of the opinion something sucks even if you don't know the genre.

As this was an official, published review from a major media outlet (not a blog, Facebook, or fan forum post), I have to ask which is it? Can the guy writing it simply say it sucks even if he doesn't know the genre-artist-etc as well as a lot of fans seem to think he should so simple points wouldn't be missed, or should he and other official reviewers do their homework and at least have a working knowledge of who and what they are reviewing?

[Emily]

It's great to see everyone's reviews on the recent gigs, looking forward to Saturday now!

I have emailed the promoter but no reply yet so I wondered if any of the posters who went to Bristol could help?

I have booked the meet and greet package at the Palladium but was quite surprised to see the arrival time was 3:30! I have a 6 week old baby who would need to be fed by someone else and I am not sure my baby will be happy doing that for the whole afternoon and evening! I wondered if there were any breaks in between check in, sound check, meeting that I could go and feed my baby in? Are you allowed to go off as long as you return for a certain time?

Thanks!

Hi, will your baby be with you and you're just wondering if you will be able to have a quiet moment apart for feeding or will you have to leave altogether to go to where the baby will be? If the former, I expect you'll be able to catch enough time. There were 20 minute lags here and there. If the latter, then if things run on schedule, there's an hour + between the meet and greet and the concert, but I don't think you'd have enough time in the lulls between check-in, sound check and meet and greet.
Congratulations on your baby!