It doesn't. And what they'll do is, a jazz studies program will bring in somebody like Butch Thompson or somebody who has somewhat of a name locally, they'll bring in a local artist who is involved with traditional jazz and they'll say we're going to cover Dixieland, you know, we're doing the history part of the jazz studies program, would you come in and do an hour on Dixieland. And that's it. Butch will go in and he'll do the hour. He won't call it Dixieland, he'll talk about early jazz. But if jazz studies even does that. The trick is, I don't think that they're even doing it as much as they did before. And the materials haven't been there. So you have jazz educators who don't treat the music with respect and so they don't learn about it, they aren't stimulated by it. The value of the Ken Burns series was it did bring it to the forefront. There was a lot of controversy about it and I had some real problems with that series. But nevertheless it was treated with some respect and audiences heard the music for the first time. And I thought there was way too much social commentary in it, and I saw it as being divisive and polarizing rather than having what I consider to be the heart of jazz which is that you bring all sorts of people and races together in the music. I think it has a very healing quality rather than a polarizing quality and that was my main complaint with his series.