What makes Music appreciation a good hobby or area of interest?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Why do you think you are a big music fan?
What made you become a music freak as opposed to movies/magic the gathering/extreme sports/fine art etc?
What, in your opinion, makes music as a past-time so attractive?

― the next grozart, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 16:44 (eighteen years ago)

One can both mentally and physically compartmentalise music into songs, albums, artists, and customised groupings, this provides the order and organisation required to process such a vast amount of data into a coherent system. Since this data can be processed in such a manner more easily than, say, film, magic/extreme sports/fine art, which all require more abstract means of association, it is more likely that one will entrench oneself in the network of music than in the others.

Plus, music is in my opinion the most instantly enjoyable, controversial, and digestible of all the arts. It spurs the imagination as easily as it displays creativity within itself, and it suggests possibilities well beyond the colours and shapes of visual art. It doesn't reveal itself all at once, and it lives and dies by the pleasure of its audience's experience. As the most altruistic of the arts I nominate it as my favourite pastime, marginally ahead of sports.

― unfished business, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 16:52 (eighteen years ago)

cheap.

― Roz, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 16:57 (eighteen years ago)

― blueski, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 17:00 (eighteen years ago)

i don't suppose you end up on ILM without having wanted to play music, be in a band or whatever at some point or another (regardless of whether you actually did it or not).

― blueski, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 17:02 (eighteen years ago)

I think that's sort of right. My own theory to part of the question is that anyone can enjoy pop/rock music to an extent. If it's playing, you can hear it.

You don't necessarily need to know a lot about it and if it's good music, anyone can enjoy it. It's not like art where often you have to have some sort of reference point or know what to look for to appreciate it. In art it either "just looks nice" like something you'd find in Athena as a print, or in the case of highbrow art there is a need for sociological or historical knowledge to appreciate it. If you don't like it, you can look away or move on.

Sure music also comes with a lot of trimmings, but if it's playing then everyone in the room can hear it (so long as they aren't deaf of course) - once everyone can hear it, no amount of "Matey Boy played guitar on this track" or "Oh this was their 1985 reunion album" can save it from either being good or bad.

That's the way I've seen it anyway. I blame being music obsessed partly on being a bit of a dweeb at school. I was a hopeless boffin geek with no dress sense or social skills. I guess back then it was easier for me to listen to the radio and hear the sounds all the other kids were into than to comb my hair or get my Mum to buy clothes that weren't from Tesco's.

Knowing a little bit about the charts or what bands were considered cool by my fellow 13 year olds made me feel like I was redeeming myself in their eyes. Quickly I developed into quite a voracious music fan, made a few friends, traded tapes, went out to indie nights, met a few girls etc. etc. But of course the other kids weren't as much into music as I'd thought. I thought back then that people would think I was tremendously cool if I had an encyclopediac music brain, same as I did when I met people who were perhaps older than me and listened to music that was relatively obscure.

This was neither right nor wrong. Sure it was kind of cool to listen to music, but it was only one aspect of a whole package (e.g. being good at sports, talking to the opposite sex with confidence, having a sense of humour) and I was only concentrating on one part of being "cool".

― the next grozart, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 17:07 (eighteen years ago)

There's a very low entry level for being into music (or there used to be) - at 14, I got into Bowie and within a few days was having really in depth passionate conversations with friends about when he was best, why he was good, had he lost it, when he'd lost it, etc etc.

(My previous hobby was Dungeons And Dragons, which probably explains why this 'pick up and play' element was such a godsend for me!)

I wonder if now as a kid getting into music you run into the joy-killing kind of 'expertise' faster. Or acquire it faster.

― Groke, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 17:09 (eighteen years ago)

xpost - similar to Grozart then!

― Groke, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 17:09 (eighteen years ago)

data can be processed
data can be processed
data can be processed

ugh

― fandango, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 17:10 (eighteen years ago)

mentally and physically compartmentalise music into songs, albums, artists, and customised groupings, this provides the order and organisation required to process such a vast amount of data into a coherent system.

iTunes?

― fandango, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 17:11 (eighteen years ago)

to answer the last question first, at it's basic level it only requires the one sense so there's a lot of freedom in terms of where you can be and what else you can do at the same time (applies to 'the art of sound' in general). it's probably a big reason why music is surely more popular than films, sports or other arts in so many ways - because all you need is some ears (and a brain obv.). what takes a natural interest into something more dedicated is music's presence and effect on you when you're still young i guess? it just seemed like an imperative force that was unavoidable to me and i never really felt a need to question that.

but the reason why i'm a 'music freak' actually has more to do with a visual element than it perhaps should do. grew up with and was inspired by 'seeing' music as much as hearing it, on TV shows and in music videos etc. - such a powerful combination. this was what made me want to make it or be involved in it in some way too although this didn't really go to 'plan' i suppose. but i never learned an instrument or anything sadly, and i never had a real interest in actually singing (or even writing songs)...

That's also important. I remember well before I'd even taken an interest in my own styles of music I used to listen to music on computer games and be enthralled by it. They were shit 8 bit melodies but my under-10 year-old ears loved it. You're also right about the "one sense" thing - music means you can still socialise with others while it is on whereas that is restricted when it comes to reading or watching a film. Even sport requires some kind of skill - there is no skill to listening to music, even a baby can do it.

― the next grozart, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 17:13 (eighteen years ago)

Sorry, fandango, I know that's an awfully mechanical, unpleasant way of putting it, but I reckon that's how the brain does it. All the flights of fancy and the idealistic mind-warping joys of music come from the listening, but its accessibility comes from the brain's tendency to process data in a logical manner.

― unfished business, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 17:13 (eighteen years ago)

There is some skill in listening to music, if you want to work out why it is that this music is causing you such pleasure.

― unfished business, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 17:15 (eighteen years ago)

iTunes?

That more or less covers the physical bit, but we do it mentally as well.

― unfished business, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 17:16 (eighteen years ago)

only some people think about music inthe way you're describing, Louis. Men in particular (so it is theorised) do have a passion for compartmentalising and obsessing over musical trivia, arranging their cd collections in interesting ways, knowing who played rhythm guitar on what song; whereas it is said women tend to enjoy music simply as an aesthetic - going out and dancing, singing along to songs they enjoy etc. Obviously there's a bit of give and take here but I think that many many people really don't give a toss about what songs are on what albums.

― the next grozart, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 17:18 (eighteen years ago)

Well, I was giving my own view, I wasn't expecting everybody to subscribe to it! I like to think that my method of grouping music helps me to understand and define what it is about the music I love so much, and by combining certain elements from certain groupings I aim to discover the essential aspects of music, the holy grails, that will help me in later life when (fingers crossed) I get to create my own.

― unfished business, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 17:21 (eighteen years ago)

I never had any ambitions to play in a band or write songs, really.

These days a vague desire to produce records, perhaps.

― Scik Mouthy, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 17:53 (eighteen years ago)

there is no skill to listening to music, even a baby can do it

Disputed.

― Scik Mouthy, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 17:54 (eighteen years ago)

There's as much skill in listening to music as in watching a film. Or anything, almost. It's about interpreting languages.

― Scik Mouthy, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 17:55 (eighteen years ago)

you're talking about analysis thru listening tho nick, rather than just hearing it and responding to/appreciating it in a more intuitive way.

― blueski, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 18:02 (eighteen years ago)

What makes it a good hobby or area of interest? All hobbies are "good", at least to those who enjoy them. Good isn't any big deal.

What I want to know is this: What's so special about "music appreciation"? What does it uniquely offer? What makes it more satisfying than other hobbies, such as sports fandom or a passion for television shows involving spacecraft?

Music speaks to us very simply. It has the power to communicate with us -- to manipulate our feelings -- in very basic, almost animal ways. Sounds and rhythms alter the way we relate to space, and melodies pull emotional responses from us whether we want them to or not. A hook gets "stuck in our head," and we carry it around with us for years, even if we claim we don't like it.

At the same time, music is a vehicle for complex intellectual expression. It engages with the present, past and future, with culture, politics and sex. Even while we respond to its sensual charms in the manner of infants or cavemen, we ponder significance and get lost in the funhouse. This is music's greatest power: the ability to combine a text -- a subject, a tangible set of ideas -- with a subtle (yet much more direct) appeal to the sensual/emotional self. Music may contain, embody, or suggest ideas, but it isn't limited to them. If we're lucky, the base appeal of "pure" sound, melody and rythm transcends our academic "appreciation" of music as an intellectual construct...

As a result of the above, the more we immerse ourselves in "music culture", the more our minds become emotionally indexed by the music we associate with certain ideas, sounds and moments. This adds a layer of color and meaning to the experience of self. When we hear or even think of music, we process more than just a single thread of sound and intellection -- we instantaneously get this huge, insperably tangled ball of cross-referenced feelings, thoughts and memories.

And music has other charms. For instance, music is very closely tied to our ideas about coolness and hipness. More than any other popular art form, music offers its fans ready-made identity enhancements. You can be hip-hop! Or punk rock. (Scary.) Or art-metal guy with long beard and no head hair. Or smart, sophisticated indie person who really deserves a design job. Or goth girl with dangerous piercings (hey, good match for art-metal guy). Or super-cool arbiter person who knows simply everything.

This "grafting" power is much stronger in music than in other art forms. Fans remake themselves in the image of their chosen music, and feel cooler as a result. In owning, enjoying or understanding ("appreciating") certain musical commodities, they feel more valuable, included in something special.

Plus lots and lots and LOTS of shit to buy. Endlessly more. What's not to like?

― Pye Poudre, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 18:16 (eighteen years ago)

<IRONY>Well, the best thing is that the music all available for free now. </IRONY>

― Saxby D. Elder, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 18:19 (eighteen years ago)

you're talking about analysis thru listening tho nick, rather than just hearing it and responding to/appreciating it in a more intuitive way.

Not necessarily, Steve - responses through reception to books, films, music, just about anything, can and do alter and become more sophisticated, multi-layered, deeper, etcetera, without pure recourse to analysis. Certainly just about anyone can appreciate watching a film or listening to a piece of music or reading a book, but to assume that that appreciation never develops or alters or becomes"better" is very, very reductive.

― Scik Mouthy, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 18:24 (eighteen years ago)

"Certainly just about anyone can appreciate watching a film or listening to a piece of music or reading a book."

Point to consider: Anyone with the physical capacity can watch a film or listen to music. But not everyone can read a book. Our appreciation of the complex codes that can be built into film, music and literature evolve over time, but do our base appreciations of "pure" sound and rhythm, light and color change?

Can we come to a more sophisticated and complex appreciation of certain shades of red, and if so, is that appreciation necessarily "better" in any meaningful way? How is an academically sophisticated analysis of jungle rhythms any more valid than an untutored, purely physical response to them?

This applies not to melody and harmony (extraordinarily complex systems that can quickly become as sophisticated and "difficult" as any literature), but to the physical emotional mechanisms within us that respond to organized noise. Even if your brain lears to process complex sound in a complex manner, I'm not sure that the body and soul* are so infinitely flexible.

* Lame word used to describe the emotional self. Please forgive me the indiscretion.

― Pye Poudre, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 18:38 (eighteen years ago)

P.S. "brain learns". Supposedly...

― Pye Poudre, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 18:39 (eighteen years ago)

but to assume that that appreciation never develops or alters or becomes"better" is very, very reductive.

i don't believe i was assuming that. maybe we're talking about a difference between 'hearing' and 'listening' tho which is fair enough.

― blueski, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 18:48 (eighteen years ago)

Don't separate out body, soul and brain, dude. I'm not saying there is only "emotional response" and "academic response" or "physical" and "intellectual" - all these responses run into each other and change and develop. Our hearing changes - as you get older you lose higher frequencies. Our brain is part of our body, and it changes and develops. Our ears, eyes, senses of smell all change. If you watch a film and have NO understanding of the language the film is in or the cultural traditions it operates in, arguably that's akin in a way to looking at a book in a language one cannot read.

― Scik Mouthy, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 19:10 (eighteen years ago)

If you watch a film and have NO understanding of the language the film is in or the cultural traditions it operates in, arguably that's akin in a way to looking at a book in a language one cannot read.

i disagree with this tho. film being primarily visual it's easy to enjoy aspects of that without needing to know the real intentions behind it. this is true of all visual art tho i think, but (text) books are far more dependent on you actually knowing that written language and the ideas and intentions can only go through that one aspect rather than sound and imagery. None of this stops some people being more into books than films tho of course.

― blueski, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 19:22 (eighteen years ago)

Talking about music as a "hobby" really seems to be about collecting records, right? Even if the records are MP3s, we're talking about collecting and not just enjoying music. Which is one interesting way it's different than following sports, say. You actually acquire things and have them around.

― Mark Rich@rdson, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 19:42 (eighteen years ago)

but unlike films and books and games and sport, music is pretty much universal. For instance, one can listen to music from any country and enjoy it (perhaps not lyrically). As children with little grounding in say where a piece of music is from or who sings it, we apply our own logic to it. Little children will dance or bop to music before they learn to speak about it. You can't really appreciate much else at such an early age because films and sport and books and even food are a bit beyond you. I'm sure even children who grow up listening to nothing but serial jazz or avant garde compositions will still form something in their brains to with which to connect.

― the next grozart, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 19:44 (eighteen years ago)

True, Sick. It's all interconnected. But you can easily create hyper-complex, super-smart melodic/harmonic assemblages that please literally no one's ear -- music that can only be appreciated intellectually. With a computer, you could cram hudreds of different beats and time signature changes into a couple seconds of impenetrable digital noise. There's a lot of extremely sophisticated music out there that does not engage the body & emotions except in the most incidental, simplistic manner. John Cage's 4.33, for instance. An arguably brilliant piece of conceptual art, but pretty much useless from a tradionalist music-as-music POV.

This suggests that, past a certain point (real-ish, but not definable), complexification adds nothing to music. It only dilutes it, replacing it's "real" function with other rewards. Rhythm is a good way of looking at this. I think we respond to rhythm in a primarily physical manner. We can learn new rhythms, and even super-tricky rhythms will come to seem "natural" to us once we get the hang of them. But there are limits. Our bodies set limits on what we can process rhythmically. We might hear an infinte density of contrasting polyrhythms in Metal Machine Music, but we can't dance to them. They don't work. It's possible to appreciate them, but it's a small, dry kind of appreciation.

I suspect that similar limitations apply to melody and harmony. That we're essentially "wired" (by nature or nurture, I can't say) to respond emotionally to certain arrangements of sound. And that while we can push the boundaries quite a ways, we remain tethered not to a specific language, but to certain rules about the way all musical languages work. This is why so much twentieth-century academic music languishes in obscurity: while it's intellectually sophisticated, it no longer condescends to engage with the way the human animal emotionally and/or physically processes sound.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with appreciating music that does not engage the body and emotions in the often simplistic manner of "traditional" music (which just about anyone can appreciate, given a little time). Hell, I love tons of wildly difficult anti-music. But an insistence on the superiority of "informed" appreciation seems weird to me -- sad, even.

― Pye Poudre, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 19:45 (eighteen years ago)

but unlike films and books and games and sport, music is pretty much universal. For instance, one can listen to music from any country and enjoy it (perhaps not lyrically). As children with little grounding in say where a piece of music is from or who sings it, we apply our own logic to it. Little children will dance or bop to music before they learn to speak about it. You can't really appreciate much else at such an early age because films and sport and books and even food are a bit beyond you. I'm sure even children who grow up listening to nothing but serial jazz or avant garde compositions will still form something in their brains to with which to connect.

the next grozart

This is all true, and yet, does it really have anything to do with music appreciation as a good hobby?

― Mark Rich@rdson, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 19:48 (eighteen years ago)

"I'm sure even children who grow up listening to nothing but serial jazz or avant garde compositions will still form something in their brains to with which to connect."

That's very specifically what I'm arguing against. Sure, kids raised on such stuff would form "something", but I think it would be a sad, shrivelled something. A punitive, thwarted something. Some musics just loose the plot eventually, becoming interesting sound art, perhaps, but missing the ecstacy that results from music's ability to speak directly to our "primitive" bodies and emotions -- in very cliched, stereotypical, and (not incidentally) overwhelming ways.

― Pye Poudre, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 19:50 (eighteen years ago)

I dunno about that though -- lots of folk music from around the world sounds atonal and just plain weird to people raised on Western harmony, and folk music doesn't have to be danceable.

― Mark Rich@rdson, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 19:53 (eighteen years ago)

4'33 is the Godwin's Law of ILM, no?

― unfished business, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 20:01 (eighteen years ago)

To answer the question directly; music appreciation is a great hobby because there's always going to be more music to appreciate.

― Scik Mouthy, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 20:06 (eighteen years ago)

While folk music doesn't have to be danceable, all folk cultures provide music for dancing. Music for dancing is as essential to culture as language and religion.

And, sure, the music of one culture often sounds strange or impenetrable to another, but that's comparable to a language difference. With time you can pick up new languages. What I'm arguing is that there are underlying rules that unite all folk forms, rules derived from they way humans physically and emotionally respond to and use music.

UB: Yes. 4.33 is the Hitler of music.

― Pye Poudre, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 20:17 (eighteen years ago)

What I'm arguing is that there are underlying rules that unite all folk forms, rules derived from they way humans physically and emotionally respond to and use music.

Fair enough -- but what are some of these rules?

― Mark Rich@rdson, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 20:19 (eighteen years ago)

"what are some of these rules?"

Good question. Not sure I can answer it.

Consider "groove". All folk music works to create and sustain a groove. A sense of circular, propulsive, movement-in-statis. Whether an Irish reel or an African (or Oberlin) drum circle. Native American chants, Tuuvan throat singing, Balinese gamelan, Tibetian singing bowls. Twentieth century pop forms. Pre-twentieth century "classical" music. The rythms may be complex or simple, fast or slow, but they operate within certain parameters. Maybe it has to do with Tony Conrad's 60-cycle hum. Maybe it has to do with our heartbeats or just with the speed at which we like to move and think. I don't know, and I don't think it matters.

The only musics that seem to totally deny groove are certain manifestations of the academic/art music that people say you have to educate yourself into an appreciation of. Which is where my bullshit detector goes off. "Sound art" that doesn't engage the body in space, at least playing with groove, really is "lesser than". It's like a car with no wheels, no engine. Interesting as art, perhaps, or as a flowerbed, but a failure as a car.

I suspect there are similar limits to the games that can be played melodically/harmonically with dissonance, suspension and resolution, referentiality-as-music, and pure sound. Timbre and tone may be lovely in and of themselves, but music drained of groove and emotionally intuitive/expressive melody is usually a rather dry exercise. A sophisticated commentary on or analysis of the nature of sound, perhaps, but a pale shadow of the emotional/physical magic worked by conventional folk & pop music. Academic exercises are fine, and you can certainly learn to "appreciate" them, but I don't think you've gained anything evern remotely comparable to the simple way that all humans relate to basic beats and tunes.

― Pye Poudre, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 21:17 (eighteen years ago)

4'33 is the Godwin's Law of ILM, no?

louis never more OTM ha ha

― blueski, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 21:26 (eighteen years ago)

Sorry I missed this thread.

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 22:14 (eighteen years ago)

Mentioning Godwin's Law is the Godwin's Law of etc etc. The whole concept was a petty snark by world-weary 1st-generation net snobs and should have been killed off years ago.

I think 4'33" and Metal Machine Music clearly DO speak to something pretty deep and innate in us, or they wouldn't have become these enormously powerful memes. Equally, what they speak to most strongly may not be our sense of the body in space (tho given how loads of cultures use silence and noise to jam or override or heighten this sense I'm not sure they DON'T speak to that). I'm guessing what they speak to is our sense of the individual within the group: pranking, challenging, solipsising (is that even a word). Kids learn early on that if you make a counter-intuitive claim, other people, including big people who wouldn't ordinarily notice you, may react in interesting (or frightening) ways. 4'33" and MMM work within their milieus in similar ways. As 'music' their appeal *may* be purely academic, but as actions it's much wider.

That's not really to disagree with the general thrust of what Pye Poudre's saying about folk music, of course.

― Groke, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 22:52 (eighteen years ago)

Sick Mouthy vs Pye Poudre's argument kind of got into this, but I was thinking about this a while back (and I'm sure many have come to this conclusion before me) that what makes music so riveting is that it is both intellectually stimulating and physically stimulating and somewhat unique among artforms for being so.

― The Reverend, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 23:02 (eighteen years ago)

hey, dude, i was only joking, there's no need to get all dissertation on my ass! :-(

― unfished business, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 23:14 (eighteen years ago)

It's interesting that you mention gamelan re "groove" b/c I don't hear that, especially when it gets noisier and the rhythms more unpredictable. That's a form that for me requires as much effort and analysis as, say, a John Cage piece, though I realize it works differently in the context in which it was made and that it's also used for dances. It's also much more timbrel than rhythmic or melodic to my ears.

― Mark Rich@rdson, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 23:17 (eighteen years ago)

Shouldn't have beat up on MMM earlier. It works just like a lot of devotional trance music from all around the world, and can be understood (appreciated) by anyone.

4.33 is a little different. While the primary gesture is obvious, like most mid-to-late 20th century art music, it exists within a very complex conceptual framework. Furthermore, it's success or failure with regard to its internal ambitions is dependent on that framework. So while we might enjoy or even understand it as lay people, we can't really appreciate it without an understanding of its art-context.

Last year, I heard a piece of experimental/documentary music called "African Feeback", by Alessandro Bosetti (blogged here, scroll down). In 2004, Bosetti visited a number of small academic villages, and played ambient, academic art music for anyone who cared to listen. He recorded people commenting on and interacting with what they heard, and then layered those recordings with the music they were listening to. It's a fascinating document of cross-cultural artistic communication. And, more poignantly, of communcations failure.

In an interview, Bosetti talks about what he learned, and I get a strong sense of sadness and futility from his words:

You mention also that the experience of listening to experimental western music wasn't a very emotional one for most of the Africans who participated. How about for you? Was the project more or less emotional than you expected?

Yes, I noticed that there seemed to be a total lack of surprise. Where I expected surprise, there was just the acceptance that the sound they were hearing existed. Everybody seemed to assume, very calmly, that if these sounds exist there must be a reason for that.

On the other side it was a very emotional experience for me. It turned me upside down in many deep ways, difficult to describe in an interview. There has been a lot of self-questioning since then and while I was there, even though I was surrounded by great people all the time, I also felt very alone in some ways. Music is not a universal language.

Did the experience of making AF change the way you listen to experimental, electro-acoustic and improvised music?

Yes, and the way I act as a creator in this musical area. It probably made me more responsible towards the people I want to speak to, if this can still make sense in a globalized world where music circulates in complex networks beyond strict cultural definitions.

It also made me much more aware of music as a groove instead of as a syntax or structure. In other words: if you want to dance you don't care about the microstructure of one piece, or of single phrases - you just dance, experience a mood, feel part of it together with other people, get into the "groove."

I realize, reading this now, that a lot of what I said earlier is just debased parroting of Bosetti's closing words (I first heard/read this late last summer). But I think he's only half right. He says, "music is not a universal language." But I think it is -- as long as it cares to be. I think the truth of the matter is this: "academic games that only seek to beguile a self-styled intellectual elite are not a universal language."

― Pye Poudre, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 23:51 (eighteen years ago)

Shit. I fucked up the [/i] tag there. Sorry.

― Pye Poudre, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 23:52 (eighteen years ago)

Damn, that x post is all fucked up. Here's a working link to the interview.

― Pye Poudre, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 23:55 (eighteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.