Oh yeah. When -- it's not like I really -- I guess I self produced a CD around 1990. It was live at a club here in San Diego. And just in listening to it one day, it dawned on me that you know I mean this is definitely a Bird influenced style/approach. But this really doesn't sound like Charlie Parker. This is really another kind of a deviation, it's off to the side a bit. And it really doesn't sound like Charlie Parker. I mean it has overtones of that.  And so on a conscious level, it sort of dawned on me then. But I never tried to copy Charlie Parker. I mean he was definitely my main influence. I've always tried to go my way into according to what I thought was aesthetically and musically the right way for me. And I never worried about that. Even though people would write or critics would always say something, it didn't bother me whether they could hear that or not. I didn't deliberately necessarily try not to sound like Charlie Parker, but I didn't really try to sound like him. I think there was just this influence, on a saxophone player, an alto player, playing this so-called modern music. And I play alto. So I mean there's going to be some similarity. Really I mean alto players sort of get the bad rap in a sense in terms of being compared with Charlie Parker. And that's mainly because you're playing the same instrument. If I took a trumpet solo of today, by anyone, transcribed it and played it on the alto saxophone, that solo would sound as much like Charlie Parker as, you know, you see? I mean Charlie Parker is so immense in terms of influence that there's not eight bars played since 1940 that some sort of way, that's totally divorced from Charlie Parker.  That's how powerful he was. And you know people can play that on tenor, can play it on piano, guitar, trumpet, tuba, trombone, and the comparison will not be made because the instrument was different. But a saxophone player can have the influence of Charlie Parker, and then no one hears or sees anything else. So anyway it's unfair.