PipeChat Digest #1479 - Tuesday, June 27, 2000
 
Re: An Interesting Experience
  by "willh" <willh@cfl.rr.com>
Re: An Interesting Experience
  by <George.Greene@RossNutrition.com>
Re: An Interesting Experience
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
Delete this if you don't wear glasses....
  by "Charles E. Peery" <cpeery19@idt.net>
Re: Delete this if you don't wear glasses....
  by "Ron Natalie" <ron@sensor.com>
glasses
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: Delete this if you don't wear glasses....
  by "Noel Stoutenburg" <mjolnir@ticnet.com>
Re: Delete this if you don't wear glasses....
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
Re: Delete this if you don't wear glasses....
  by <Cremona502@cs.com>
Re: Delete this if you don't wear glasses....
  by <DudelK@aol.com>
Re: Delete this if you don't wear glasses....
  by "Ed Kolcz" <kolcz@prodigy.net>
Reading glasses, reduced scores and cue cards
  by "Glenda" <gksjd85@access.aic-fl.com>
re:  eyeglasses for organists
  by "V. David Barton" <vdbarton@erols.com>
pedal c.f.
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Delete this if you don't wear glasses....
  by "Roy Wilson" <royjaneann@hotmail.com>
Re: Delete this if you don't wear glasses....
  by "Bob Elms" <elmsr@albanyis.com.au>
Re: Delete this if you don't wear glasses....
  by <RonSeverin@aol.com>
Re: Delete this if you don't wear glasses....
  by <RonSeverin@aol.com>
 


(back) Subject: Re: An Interesting Experience From: "willh" <willh@cfl.rr.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:20:37 -0400     >What a sad story! And to think that churches are firing competent musicians >left and right, but this one can't bring themselves to get rid of an >incompetent, and take the necessary steps to assure good music. Sorry, but >they deserve what they get! > >Bruce   Dear Bruce and List,   It is indeed sad that competent musicians are being fired from churches. But, in this case that did not happen. I quit the position in order to continue my college education at Florida State University. I see two possibilities: 1. She'll get better and they'll be able to stand her. or 2. She'll stay the same and they'll fire her. The big problem in this area especially is the lack of organist. All of the competent ones have = jobs and don't want to work at a church that pays less. This is certainly not what I wanted to happen but it was out of my hands. Perhaps the new = minister will be able to do something.   Sincerely,   Will Scarboro          
(back) Subject: Re: An Interesting Experience From: <George.Greene@RossNutrition.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:32:50 -0400     Oh, to be able to change registrations during the hymns to show the colors = of the organ--it would be sooooo nice! We have a 1976-vintage Saville 7226, = which has some VERY nice sounds on it, but I have to play all of the hymns on a "death ray" registration in order to hear myself above the Praze Team, = gee-tar, and electronic keyboard!!!    
(back) Subject: Re: An Interesting Experience From: "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:54:46   At 09:32 AM 6/27/2000 -0400, you wrote: >but I have to play all of the hymns on a >"death ray" registration in order to hear myself above the Praze Team, gee-tar, >and electronic keyboard!!!<snip>   Hopefully, you can direct the acoustic energy of the "death ray" directly at the pRaZe bAnD members, thus melting them, eliminating your problem. Amplifier sabotage works well, also.   DeserTBoB  
(back) Subject: Delete this if you don't wear glasses.... From: "Charles E. Peery" <cpeery19@idt.net> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:21:42 -0400   I've arrived at that bifocal age. I can see the restaurant, but not the menu. I can see the harp music, but not the upper strings by my right ear when I turn my head to look at them. When I explained in detail what I needed the first time, the opthalmologist said "No-line progressive = lenses-- these'll be great!" I tried to adjust (for two years!) but went back this month and said "I hate these things." I tend to spread stuff on the organ desk three or four pages across. Despite the fact that it's a two manual instrument, the music desk seems high. (I'm 5'6", that has something to do with it..!) So, with the first pair, I had to hold my chin way up to = focus. In order to glance over to the right a page or two to prepare myself, I'd have to turn my whole head to get what I'm glancing at in focus, then turn it back in time to focus on what I was actually playing. Forget about focusing on the conductor...I'd have to lower my whole head to do that, = he's in the distance portion at the top of the lenses. Since the conductor's a blur anyway, I tried to get the doc to give me a pair of glasses where the whole lens would focus at about arm's length. I figured this would be good for the computer, playing the organ, etc. He wouldn't do it. He said he was against it because the measurement of the focal distance would have to be so exact that it would never be right under any sort of varying circumstances, like if I had the bench a bit further back or tried to play = a different instrument. He recommended a newer no-line, saying, ironically, "Oh, many improvements in the last two years, these'll be great!!" They = are only slightly better, the middle distance area is somewhat wider.   Am I a freak or what? (Vision-wise, let's stick to that...) If anybody = else has this problem, could you tell me how you deal with it? My vision isn't that bad, I could really play pretty well by just taking the darn things OFF, but why can't they understand and get it right?   Chuck Peery Cincinnati            
(back) Subject: Re: Delete this if you don't wear glasses.... From: "Ron Natalie" <ron@sensor.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:32:51 -0400       "Charles E. Peery" wrote: > Since the conductor's a > blur anyway, I tried to get the doc to give me a pair of glasses where = the > whole lens would focus at about arm's length. I figured this would be = good > for the computer, playing the organ, etc. He wouldn't do it. He said = he > was against it because the measurement of the focal distance would have = to > be so exact that it would never be right under any sort of varying > circumstances, like if I had the bench a bit further back or tried to = play a > different instrument. He recommended a newer no-line, saying, = ironically, > "Oh, many improvements in the last two years, these'll be great!!" They = are > only slightly better, the middle distance area is somewhat wider.   That's silly. We call such things reading glasses. Essentially, just = make a set of glasses with only the near vision correction.   You need a better doctor. Last year at the Experimental Aircraft = Association convention, some association of opticians (or optometrists or somebody) = were giving away tape measures to measure the focal distances int he cockpit so you could have the appropriate "flying" glasses made.  
(back) Subject: glasses From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:36:17 -0700   Measure the distance from the end of your nose to the computer screen, the extremities of the music rack, and the piano (for good measure) ... take = the average of the three.   Then go to ANOTHER eye doctor who will LISTEN to you, and tell him you = need computer/playing glasses and that the average distance is thus-and-such (I = think mine's about 25'' ... the church organ is small, but I had a LONG music = rack put on it for all the liturgy books).   I can still see the choir, and the altar in the organ mirror ... not = totally clear, but enough to glare at the choir and know what's going on at the = altar. And I've managed in other places when I've had a guest conductor.   One of our layreaders hadVarilux lenses ... he mispronounced about every = third word ... the Rector finally told him to "go get glasses like Bud's" = (grin).   I've tried EVERYTHING over the years, and I've found that THREE pairs of = glasses (distance, playing, reading) is still the best solution.   Cheers,   Bud   P.S. - I lived in Cinti about a million years ago, but I can't remember = the name of my eye doctor ... I'll ask my teacher if you can't find a good one.        
(back) Subject: Re: Delete this if you don't wear glasses.... From: "Noel Stoutenburg" <mjolnir@ticnet.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:39:30 -0500   "Charles E. Peery" wrote:   > I've arrived at that bifocal age. <balance snipped>   When I first discovered that I suffered from the same problem you do, I considered using the reading glasses you can get at most any pharmacy; unfortunately, this did not work for me, as I have astigmatism = complicating my presbyopia.   ns      
(back) Subject: Re: Delete this if you don't wear glasses.... From: "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:36:57   At 05:21 PM 6/27/2000 -0400, you wrote: >When I explained in detail what I >needed the first time, the opthalmologist said "No-line progressive= lenses-- >these'll be great!" I tried to adjust (for two years!) but went back this >month and said "I hate these things."<snip>   I dunno why...I've had two pairs of progressives, and I won't wear anything else. You need to learn to train yourself that to look CLOSE, look down. Look FAR, look up.   >So, with the first pair, I had to hold my chin way up to focus.<snip>   What makes you think bifocals would be any different??   >Am I a freak or what? (Vision-wise, let's stick to that...) If anybody else >has this problem, could you tell me how you deal with it? My vision isn't >that bad, I could really play pretty well by just taking the darn things >OFF, but why can't they understand and get it right?<snip>   They DO have it right...you're not LEARNING. We get old...we get glasses...we learn to focus with our head elevation. 'Tis a fact of life. Remember when you made fun of old people when you were a kid, because to see anything up close they had to poke their nose in the air and peer downward? Your turn in the barrel now! Join the club!   DeserTBoB =D2^=D2=AC  
(back) Subject: Re: Delete this if you don't wear glasses.... From: <Cremona502@cs.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 18:55:28 EDT   Chuck, I solved this problem by getting "lawyer" glasses, the low rectangular frames. They allow me to read the music through the glasses, but to look =   over the tops of them to see the choir, director, nave, etc. I tried the =   gradual bifocals, but it was an upside-down solution, and I could never = get back to the right spot to read the music.   Hope this helps.   I have also tried copying machine reduction to get the music to a readable =   size without the use of glasses.   Please let us know how you solve this.     Bruce .. . . .in the Beagles' Nest with the Baskerbeagles Molly, Duncan, and Miles Cremona502@cs.com HOWLING ACRES: http://ourworld.cs.com/Brucon502  
(back) Subject: Re: Delete this if you don't wear glasses.... From: <DudelK@aol.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 19:29:51 EDT   There IS something new in progressives; I think it's called RD for room distance. I have regular progressives which work most of the time for most =   things. I also have a separate reading pair for when I'm doing extended = work at my desk, such as proofing. They recently moved my computer, and I found =   myself unable to deal with the monitor because it is at arm's length. I = went to my optician and asked if they could give me a pair just for = computer/organ at arm's length. He told me about this new development, and they work fine =   for me. I can see the computer and I can see distance out to a good = extent. They are not as good for just reading, however, so I am resolved to having = 3 pairs of glasses at my advanced age of 56. However, each one does the job quite well for me. Persist -- they can take care of you. I'm fortunate that I have a = wonderful optician here in Washington who keeps up on things and specializes in = going the extra mile for customer satisfaction -- guess that's why I have been dealing with them for a long time.   Cheers, David  
(back) Subject: Re: Delete this if you don't wear glasses.... From: "Ed Kolcz" <kolcz@prodigy.net> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 19:30:41 -0400   I had the same problem. Forget progressive lenses. They don't work in = our situation. I have 2 pair of glasses. One are bi-focals the other for distance only. I have the focal length set to approx 25" like you do = but I also have the 'reading' portion moved upward on the lens so that I don't have to tilt my head up at all (or just barely) to read music. It takes a bit of getting used to....like tilting your head down to see distance but you get used to that. Also at first don't try walking if you have them = made this way....but I've gotten used to that also. As for driving a car....that's when I switch to the 'distance only'. It took me 4 separate trips to the eye doctor to get the lenses right but finally got it (Lens Crafters is great for that).   Ed   ----- Original Message ----- From: Charles E. Peery <cpeery19@idt.net> To: <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 5:21 PM Subject: Delete this if you don't wear glasses....     > I've arrived at that bifocal age. I can see the restaurant, but not the > menu. I can see the harp music, but not the upper strings by my right = ear > when I turn my head to look at them. When I explained in detail what I > needed the first time, the opthalmologist said "No-line progressive lenses-- > these'll be great!" I tried to adjust (for two years!) but went back = this > month and said "I hate these things." I tend to spread stuff on the = organ > desk three or four pages across. Despite the fact that it's a two = manual > instrument, the music desk seems high. (I'm 5'6", that has something to = do > with it..!) So, with the first pair, I had to hold my chin way up to focus. > In order to glance over to the right a page or two to prepare myself, = I'd > have to turn my whole head to get what I'm glancing at in focus, then = turn > it back in time to focus on what I was actually playing. Forget about > focusing on the conductor...I'd have to lower my whole head to do that, he's > in the distance portion at the top of the lenses. Since the conductor's = a > blur anyway, I tried to get the doc to give me a pair of glasses where = the > whole lens would focus at about arm's length. I figured this would be = good > for the computer, playing the organ, etc. He wouldn't do it. He said = he > was against it because the measurement of the focal distance would have = to > be so exact that it would never be right under any sort of varying > circumstances, like if I had the bench a bit further back or tried to = play a > different instrument. He recommended a newer no-line, saying, = ironically, > "Oh, many improvements in the last two years, these'll be great!!" They are > only slightly better, the middle distance area is somewhat wider. > > Am I a freak or what? (Vision-wise, let's stick to that...) If anybody else > has this problem, could you tell me how you deal with it? My vision = isn't > that bad, I could really play pretty well by just taking the darn things > OFF, but why can't they understand and get it right? > > Chuck Peery > Cincinnati > > > > > > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org >    
(back) Subject: Reading glasses, reduced scores and cue cards From: "Glenda" <gksjd85@access.aic-fl.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 18:43:25 -0500   Regarding reducing scores, I remember having a recitalist here a few years ago. He was playing Dupre (I think the prelude and fugue in g minor) and had this tableaux spread out on the music rack. He had reduced the score = so small it was just dots on a page. I asked him how he read it, and he said he didn't - he knew the piece from memory, but doing this was a "crutch" = to make him feel better so he wouldn't forget something.   I have been so terribly nearsighted all my life, that I hoped when I got = old I would have perfect vision. However, the doctor says no, and the astigmatism that I had as a child and outgrew is slowly coming back. The contacts prescribed do not allow me to see really close (like to thread a needle or clasp a bracelet). However, I reduce stuff all the time to fit = on the organ rack and avoid page turners. I took a reduced score to a lesson once, and the teacher didn't know if I was playing it right or not because he couldn't read the notes!   Maybe if you just have the music enlarged and on cue cards right in the front row of the choir - you wouldn't need bifocals or several sets of glasses. Just a thought - thought I'd throw it out; you can throw it = back. Bye - I'm going to figure out how to cook a diabetic dinner.   Glenda Sutton      
(back) Subject: re: eyeglasses for organists From: "V. David Barton" <vdbarton@erols.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 20:04:36 -0400   I have found the answer to be the so-called "executive-style" trifocal lenses. "Executive-style" means that all three segments (or two, in the case of bifocals) go *all the way across* the lens so you don't have to = scan back and forth by turning your head to keep the music rack in the nearer focal length lower lens. Depending on your age, you might not need trifocals, but the "executive-style" is definitely worth looking into. I cordially despised my earlier conventional bifocals for that very reason. = I would have to turn my head around nearly 180 degrees to see the stop jambs on either side, not to mention the outer reaches of a landscape-oriented score of any size. Try it; you'll like it.      
(back) Subject: pedal c.f. From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:09:02 -0700   Another thing to consider is that when the c.f. is in the pedals, whether on 8 or 4, the real bass part is often in the left hand, which should have a light 16' stop added. That can be achieved, even on a very small organ, by drawing 16 and 4 on one manual, and playing the RIGHT hand up an octave, thus leaving the other manual free to be coupled to the pedal with the c.f. stop.   "Christ Our Lord To Jordan Came" and "Jesus Christus unser Heiland" from the Clavieruebung (large version) are good examples of continuo-basses like that. "Rejoice, Beloved Christians" is another. And I play the alternate version of the 2nd "Nun komm der Heiden Heiland" in the Great 18, with 16-4 in the left hand, 8-2 in the right hand, and the c.f. on a 4' stop (down an octave, I think ... the score's at church).   Cheers,   Bud        
(back) Subject: Delete this if you don't wear glasses.... From: "Roy Wilson" <royjaneann@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:39:35 PDT   Dear Chuck:   I think that I relate to your problem similarly. I play the organ (as = well as the other keyboard instruments), conduct an orchestra, teach strings, including harp, in the public schools, and read in the bed at night.   I do not have a solution for the harp playing in the orchestra. When I = play the piano, organ, or harpsichord in the orchestra, I am back with the harpist and I have trouble focusing the conductor. But I can generally = see him well enough to know where the beat is and what kind of beat he is = using. I do not, as the harpist would, have to see several close distances as well as the far conductor. The so-called no-line progressive lenses = change focus from top to bottom of the glasses. If you could get a prescription which focused from right to left, with close vision at the right, maybe = you could more easily see the harp strings in the top octaves just to the = right of your head.   One pair of glasses made especially for the organ has solved several problems. I have a three manual and the lyre is about 26 inches away from =   my eyes. So I had a pair made which would focus at about 26 inches. The optho. would agree to doing a single pair for this purpose, after I tried about 6 differing pairs, with different solutions and found them all unsatisfactory. Some of them I liked for reading and driving and regular normal seeing, especially the ones which were called "progressives", probably similar to the so-called no-line glasses. Finally, I measured = the distance from eye to organ lyre and insisted on glasses which would focus for me at that length. Like you, I copy my music and spread it out. If it is more than 4 pages, = I reduce it so that it will fit on the lyre. The 26 inch focusing glasses work excellently for playing on my church organ, although sometimes there = is a problem when I play a recital on another organ with a different lyre distance. When playing on my church organ, I find myself leaning to the left and right sometimes, to get the best focus on the pages at the left = and right of the lyre. I have no trouble seeing the reduced music.   As it turned out, those glassses work well for conducting and teaching. = As I stand at the podium, the music is about 24 to 28 inches from my eye and = I can use that pair for conducting. The podium can be adjusted for my = correct distance, 26 inches. I often take my glasses off, if I want to see the orchestra members better. My eyes focus well enough without glasses to = see if they are all bowing in the same direction, etc.   My wife has one pair for the piano, another for her three-manual church organ, another for playing the cello in the orchestra--she shares the = music stand. She blows up her orchestra music and her stand partner does not complain. Then she has yet another, no-line pair for regular daily multifocus.   She has trouble keeping up with her glasses, and finds that she has left a =   pair that she needs at church, or home, or at the university where she teaches. I am learing to keep up with my two pair and generally have the one I need when I need it.   I see that there are already several responses to your post. Best wishes = in getting what you need. Just tell the optho. that you need "thus and such" =   and insist.   :o)   Roy Wilson St. John's UMCh Lubbock, TX     >From: "Charles E. Peery" <cpeery19@idt.net> >Reply-To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> >To: pipechat@pipechat.org >Subject: Delete this if you don't wear glasses.... >Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:21:42 -0400 > >I've arrived at that bifocal age. I can see the restaurant, but not the >menu. I can see the harp music, but not the upper strings by my right = ear >when I turn my head to look at them. When I explained in detail what I >needed the first time, the opthalmologist said "No-line progressive >lenses-- >these'll be great!" I tried to adjust (for two years!) but went back this >month and said "I hate these things." I tend to spread stuff on the organ >desk three or four pages across. Despite the fact that it's a two manual >instrument, the music desk seems high. (I'm 5'6", that has something to = do >with it..!) So, with the first pair, I had to hold my chin way up to >focus. >In order to glance over to the right a page or two to prepare myself, I'd >have to turn my whole head to get what I'm glancing at in focus, then = turn >it back in time to focus on what I was actually playing. Forget about >focusing on the conductor...I'd have to lower my whole head to do that, >he's >in the distance portion at the top of the lenses. Since the conductor's = a >blur anyway, I tried to get the doc to give me a pair of glasses where = the >whole lens would focus at about arm's length. I figured this would be = good >for the computer, playing the organ, etc. He wouldn't do it. He said he >was against it because the measurement of the focal distance would have = to >be so exact that it would never be right under any sort of varying >circumstances, like if I had the bench a bit further back or tried to = play >a >different instrument. He recommended a newer no-line, saying, ironically, >"Oh, many improvements in the last two years, these'll be great!!" They >are >only slightly better, the middle distance area is somewhat wider. > >Am I a freak or what? (Vision-wise, let's stick to that...) If anybody = else >has this problem, could you tell me how you deal with it? My vision = isn't >that bad, I could really play pretty well by just taking the darn things >OFF, but why can't they understand and get it right? > >Chuck Peery >Cincinnati   ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com    
(back) Subject: Re: Delete this if you don't wear glasses.... From: "Bob Elms" <elmsr@albanyis.com.au> Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:36:44 +0800   NO Charles, you are not a freak but your doctor is WRONG!! I wear bifocals = and had precisely the same problems as you have, my eye man made me a pair of glasses with a focal length of about 2 feet. I use these for organ and for = the computer and they work fine. They are not so sharply focussed that = everything a foot or so beyond that distance goes badly out of focus.   Last year I had a cataract removed from my left eye and a lens implant. = Now I play the organ without glasses, but find for the computer I still need the single-focus glasses.   Bob Elms.   "Charles E. Peery" wrote:   > I've arrived at that bifocal age. I can see the restaurant, but not the > menu. I can see the harp music, but not the upper strings by my right = ear > when I turn my head to look at them. (snip) Despite the fact that it's a = two > manual > instrument, the music desk seems high. (I'm 5'6", that has something to = do > with it..!) So, with the first pair, I had to hold my chin way up to = focus. > In order to glance over to the right a page or two to prepare myself, = I'd > have to turn my whole head to get what I'm glancing at in focus, then = turn > it back in time to focus on what I was actually playing. Forget about > focusing on the conductor...I'd have to lower my whole head to do that, = he's > in the distance portion at the top of the lenses. Since the conductor's = a > blur anyway, I tried to get the doc to give me a pair of glasses where = the > whole lens would focus at about arm's length. I figured this would be = good > for the computer, playing the organ, etc. He wouldn't do it. He said = he > was against it because the measurement of the focal distance would have = to > be so exact that it would never be right under any sort of varying > circumstances, like if I had the bench a bit further back or tried to = play a > different instrument. He recommended a newer no-line, saying, = ironically, > "Oh, many improvements in the last two years, these'll be great!!" They = are > only slightly better, the middle distance area is somewhat wider. > > Am I a freak or what? (Vision-wise, let's stick to that...) If anybody = else > has this problem, could you tell me how you deal with it? My vision = isn't > that bad, I could really play pretty well by just taking the darn things > OFF, but why can't they understand and get it right? > > Chuck Peery > Cincinnati > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org   -- ----------------------------------------------------- Click here for Free Video!! http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/      
(back) Subject: Re: Delete this if you don't wear glasses.... From: <RonSeverin@aol.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 20:45:34 EDT   Dear Chuck:   Just take the glasses off, that's what I do. I have the same problem. Eye doctor's don't have a clue sometimes. Yes, I had a pair made that work, but I often =   forget to bring them. I have a stigmatism problem too, I wouldn't wish on anyone. =   We're about the same age, and I guess it goes with the territory.   All the best,   Ron  
(back) Subject: Re: Delete this if you don't wear glasses.... From: <RonSeverin@aol.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 21:11:02 EDT   Dear Bob:   I've heard of the three blind mice, but we must be over a dozen blind = church mice. I also reprint my music so I can see it on Sunday. I slightly reduce the = size and mount it on hard board, as the A/C sometimes blows whole scores away. I've =   used paper clips and book edges for years to tame the wind, now I just scotch = tape it and it doesn't blow away.   If you wear the wrong glasses it causes neck problems, that only a Chiropractor could love. I've gone that route too. I'll be darned if I'm going to give = up, even if I have to suffer pain to do it.   Ron   PS Blindness in church mice has reached epidemic proportions.