Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17524
Posted: December 06 2010 at 21:04
richardh wrote:
Let music fly. That means no rules at all and that includes your rule that solo's somehow invalidate the progressiveness of the music.
With one exception ... if it is just a solo ... why bother calling it "progressive" or "prog" ... go to NY and listen to all those lounge lizard jazz kings!
Jazz, and you can definitly start on Miles if you want ... is about solos ... and they may or might not, match the music ... and what comes out, comes out ... and that was Miles' point all the way.
To consider almost all of the Keith Emerson work in ELP (all the way to Karn Evil -- I quit after that!) ... is the same thing as saying that he is solo'ing the whole time ... and he is NOT ... he is accentuating the music and doing a lot of stuff with it, to make it original ... and sound right. And he did a magnificent job of that.
The only time that he spent his time doing solos, would be when he was doing fun stuff in rock'n'roll stuff (The Sheriff and the silly stuff) because rock'n'roll is about a guitar solo ... and his keyboard was the guitar!. Within the context of what they were doing, to just simply "solo" would be superfluous and stupid and hurt the music ... and the expression in between the lyrics would be inane and imaterial and just "filler" ... which it isn't! It's a part of the story that the music tells you, and you almost do not need the lyrics ... you can take Greg Lake's singing out of Endless Enigma and you still have a masterful piece of music, just as good as Mozart ... and you call that solo?
In general, saying that anything in Genesis, all the way through Trick of the Tail ... was a "solo" is (in my book) really sad ... and a lack of vision in regards to the music itself. And now I don't blame Peter Gabriel from saying good bye to it ... if it was all becoming solos ... he wanted something else more artistic than egocentric music!
Check this out ... do you think that Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Vivaldi, Bach ... you name them ... c'mon ... do it ... would be mentioned as "MUSIC", or composers, if all they did was create "solo's"? ... we can have latitude here, and yes, in Opera they created "solos" ... for singers ... it's called "arias" ... but the instrumentation has always been discussed as a movie telling you a story ... and in the case of this board discussing "progressive music" or "prog" ... a story they can't see and are relying on lyrics to tell them!
The original, progressive material, was almost all ... exclusively NOT about solo's. So you think that Mr. Fripp just did a solo in 21st Century Schizoid Man? ... you missed his point about the music, the lyrics and his comment about loudness and noise ... and what it was doing. Hint ... it was not just about the bombs in the air ... it was also about the loud music that did not mean much! -- -which most of "prog" has become!
So weird ... that we worship something and yet ... we hate it ... we can't even look at our own definition ... because immediately we will ignore it because of something that we like ... and want to include in the term.
In general, "progressive" has nothing to do with solos. Jazz is all about solos ... but I suppose that too many folks here hate jazz? ... guess what ... there are 100 different forms of jazz too! And not all the fusion and electric stuff in jazz is about solos either. Or you haven't heard a lot of hte ECM and other labels that experiment with jazz and moods!
Edited by moshkito - January 19 2011 at 19:55
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com
Joined: December 01 2010
Location: London, England
Status: Offline
Points: 195
Posted: December 21 2010 at 17:56
Cactus Choir wrote:
JeanFrame wrote:
According to the web, the best keyboard players of the progressive rock era were Keith Emerson, Tony Banks, Billy Ritchie, Rick Wright, and RIck Wakeman. Funny thing is, I never heard any of them play what I'd call a great solo. The closest of the bunch has to be Rick Wakeman, he certainly seems to have the best technique of all the other candidates, and his clever use of sound textures by way of range of instruments is unsurpassed. Some of his solo pieces are outstanding, though mainly on his own without a band at all, clearly a different strategy, and not really accountable to anyone but himself. Although the only one of those nominees to actually carry a band on his own fully and properly (and the first to do so) was Ritchie (of Clouds), I would say that he is one of the poorest of the bunch when it comes to actual solos. Emerson, though fully deserving his accolades as King of the keyboards, often showed that solos weren't his strong point either. Rick Wright isn't really on a par with the others as far as technique and dynamics go, but he was unbeatable at soundscapes and atmosphere, solos weren't really ever his domain. Banks is another fine foot soldier of the keys, and can boast many fine moments in performance, but not in solos of any stature.
Solos are almost another context from what the keyboardist does in his other routine functions as part of the band. It's the moment when he stands apart from the others and takes centre stage. The content of the solo can't be just fast or flashy (though that can help!), it has to be meaningful. Personally, the finest piano solo I've heard in recen times is from a virtual pop radio song 'That's the way it is'. It sparkles and jumps and never settles into wondering what the next note is, it soars over the cliff and takes its chances. That's what I call a solo.
You make some good points but I have to disagree about Emerson. It's all a matter of taste of course but I can think of a lot of great solos he did - KE9 prts 1 and 3, The Barbarian, Rondo (loads of different live versions), Stones of Years (again some stonking live versions). The Three Fates is one of my favourite Emerson pieces and that's almost one big solo.
Trying to think of who was good at solos I'd say the Daves Lawson and Greenslade from Greenslade, and Jon Lord from Deep Purple who did a lot of great stuff both live and in the studio. Brian Auger is one of the most creative Hammond soloists I've heard working in rock music and Vincent Crane of Atomic Rooster is another worth a mention.
Tony Kaye did some good work on the first two Yes albums but seemed to have turned into a session man just holding down chords by the time of The Yes Album.
I agree about the Bruce Hornsby song!
You make some good points too. And I don’t disagree about
some of those Emerson solos at least. I didn’t say that he couldn’t play solos,
just that he wasn’t consistently great at playing them. Most of his best
playing is what I would call ‘set pieces’, and where he plays ‘free’, he is
often too sloppy and very much more of a standard organ-riff Jimmy McGriff kind
of player, it’s not really his forte (if you’ll pardon the pun!). He definitely
led the way into the synth/prog keyboard era, and as I said, deserves his
accolades. But we’re talking purely about solos here. I agree that the
Greenslade guys are great players, but that kind of jazz soloing is more about
freehand doodling than it is about thought or true participation in the songs
or meaning of the pieces, it’s often selfish, self-indulgent, disconnected, and
nothing to do with the heart of any composition at all – it’s a different
approach.
Jon Lord and Vincent Crane I’d place at the top of the
second division in terms of keyboard support players, Lord ahead of Crane
because Crane (like Ritchie) was purely an organist, Lord had more strings to
his bow, and he translated himself into the prog era, Crane (and Ritchie)
didn’t. If this topic was about keyboard techniques, I’d choose Wakeman, the
two Greenslades, Auger (who nevertheless was more of a very fine piano player
playing organ than a born organist); if this was about the Hammond rock organ
alone, Ritchie and Emerson (in that order) would be ahead of anyone by miles on
a live stage, Emerson the greater showman, Ritchie the ultimate one-man band;
if it was about Masters of progressive rock keyboards, it would be Emerson and
Wakeman in that order - even though I rate Wakeman’s technique first, Emerson
has more dynamics and deals with it all wonderfully well without the support of
a full band, the band couldn’t exist without him. Wakeman was a luxury item – a
fantastic asset to have – but his absence wouldn’t stop the band. Looking at
all aspects, I still say Emerson is the King of the Keyboards, and Wakeman the
Prince.
Getting back to the point though, solos, I place Wakeman
ahead of any of the rest – just.
Thank you for the Bruce Hornsby link – I couldn’t remember
his name, just the piano solo!
Joined: December 01 2010
Location: London, England
Status: Offline
Points: 195
Posted: December 21 2010 at 18:00
moshkito wrote:
JeanFrame wrote:
According to the web, the best keyboard players of the progressive rock era were Keith Emerson, Tony Banks, Billy Ritchie, Rick Wright, and RIck Wakeman. ...
Wow ... you found GOD!
Now it's time to go read those scriptures!
Actually, I've been trying like crazy to see if I can get the ProgArchives to do something about their organization so that all of their information is much better presented, much better sorted, and would become a much better tool for the internet viewer and person searching for this music and information on it.
While I like the rather anarchistic manner in which things are done here, the sad part is that sometimes it works against the design, and the process and the ability to organize things in such a matter that even a professor ... would be interested in checking it out ... instead ... all the professors are writing stuff on Wikipedia and we just look like a bunch of nerds and idiots that just like the music ... we're not smart enough to do better than that.
We have some great information on the bands. We have some very good reviews ... and maybe some that are not really reviews that should be taken out or placed in a posting on a forum ... and then we should clean up our discussions on the front page ... right now it's just nothing about "progressive music" and what it means ... it's just a bunch of links, that have the effect of ... splitting progressive music to smithreens!
Which is counter productive to what we really want to do! I don't thik Wiki is God ... but you gotta give it credit for not being afraid to put the information in there and then make sure you can check it out on your own ... it's what a good paper looks like in college, and you would get a good grade for. I guess that this board would be considered the hippie group in the commune and some of us are not interested in dishes ... we're more interested in divisions like "crossover", "neothisandthat" ... a lot more than we are in putting down the real history and information around the work that we love.
Progressive music was not about solos. Jazz is about solos. So, it figures that if all you are checking out is "solos", you are listening to the wrong music!
What a great idea! We should consider biography pages of all the bands with all the editors contributing (and arguing) over the details. Hopefully, sense would prevail, and we wouldn't have too many edit wars - or would we? Probably, yes. Though it may still be worth it, if we produced the ultimate web reference on bands.
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17524
Posted: December 21 2010 at 19:46
richardh wrote:
Progressive music should be free of boundaries I agree. But then that means it should be allowed to go anywhere. Keith Emerson and Carl Palmer have great interest in jazz music so is it any surprise that this creeped into their own music.
Let music fly. That means no rules at all and that includes your rule that solo's somehow invalidate the progressiveness of the music.
I am not sure ... and that would be just me ... that I can hear anything in ELP that is considered "jazz" or show inklings that lean towards jazz ... but I have not listened to anything of theirs past Brain Salad Surgery ...
Based on the first 4 or 5 albums, they were a lot more interested in making sure they accentuated the music and lyrics in their very own way, and sometimes, it would seem like a jazz chord or moment, or a classical chord or moment, or a rock chord or moment ... but in the end ... to break up/down things like "Endless Engima and say something like parts 3 or 4 from X to Y minutes are influenced by Davis Miles ... and it might be there and it might not ... but that is like Daevid Allen telling you that he is interested in jazz, then you listen to Gong's Trilogy and you go ... jazz? ... it's a different bloke out there in Europe ... jazz in France and Italy and Germany is ... totally different than the American version that is more centered on blues and some variations upon a theme ...
I don't know ... I can hear all kinds of influences in ELP ... but I can tell you that there is one influence that is beyong all influences ... it's ELP ... and that is why we remember them! To me, none of it was a solo at all ... it was mostly an expression that was necessary and was expressed as such in the way they felt needed to be made and done ... and that is why we remember it.
If they had given up and just gone for "jazz" or "rock" or some other idea, or "solo" (for this board's sakes!) ... I seriously doubt their music would have been remembered ... they would have been just like so many other bands in Europe that we like but do not give credit for their music and inventiveness ... !!!
The inspiration, in the end ... should be invisible ... now if you tell me that one cut in ITCOTCK (KC) ... is very jazz like, I will accept it better, with one exception ... at that time, stuff like that was not considered jazz at all ... was considered "experimental" ,... and it was the time that Miles Davis was bringing out his masterpieces that blew jazz to hell and back (in America -- Europe already had those types all over!) ... totally different than what we thought of what jazz was ... and all of a sudden isn't!
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com
Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 28064
Posted: December 22 2010 at 01:28
Stones of Years is an obvious solo. Solo's can be played within a structure without changing the basic nature of the music. Emerson clearly would have got bored playing everything by the book or exactly how it was written down in the first place and ELP were playing some 300 shows a year in the early seventies. Carl also had his drum solo. This was very much part of the 'show' but I believe it helped them develop ideas. For instance Toccata is almost akin to a percussion solo but was structured in a particular way. So I am not talking 'free form' or anything like that but I think most listeners would discern a massive difference between ELP and say Genesis where individually the members (in ELP) had a bit more freedom to express themselves.
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17524
Posted: January 19 2011 at 19:51
Publius84 wrote:
It's not all about keyboard solos for most of us, I think. It's all about different aspects of music. Some of us like to analyse the music we are listening to. I know music works as a whole. But we should not deceive ourselfs. The fact is that such music aspect as construction of a composition, melody, tempo, dynamics, instrumentation, each instrument sound and part it plays make music work as a whole. It's not all about "soloing" over the whole song, but you have to agree that diversity of music is important. Sometimes it's a guitar, keyboard, bass, drum or other instrument solo, sometimes it's a bridge, collision, interludium or even "Ad Libitum". It all make music diverse and interesting. On this forum people discuss those aspects they like in many different threads and this is what is all about.
Try telling that to someone that thinks all music is a solo ... not a single "progressive" masterpiece means anything to anyone around here ... how sad ... the music would have no future and no one would have remembered it! And it was NOT, because of the "solos" that most progressive bombs that we love are remembered ... yet, that is what is listed.
Again, why bother, if everything is a solo ... man ... we need a Karajan again so bad! ... better yet, we need a Fellini small film in these people's heads! (Orchestra Rehearsal) ... because there is no music if everyone goes their own way unlike what Fleetwood Mac said!
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17524
Posted: January 19 2011 at 20:35
JeanFrame wrote:
According to the web, the best keyboard players of the progressive rock era were Keith Emerson, Tony Banks, Billy Ritchie, Rick Wright, and RIck Wakeman. Funny thing is, I never heard any of them play what I'd call a great solo. The closest of the bunch has to be Rick Wakeman, he certainly seems to have the best technique of all the other candidates, and his clever use of sound textures by way of range of instruments is unsurpassed. Some of his solo pieces are outstanding, though mainly on his own without a band at all, clearly a different strategy, and not really accountable to anyone but himself. Although the only one of those nominees to actually carry a band on his own fully and properly (and the first to do so) was Ritchie (of Clouds), I would say that he is one of the poorest of the bunch when it comes to actual solos. Emerson, though fully deserving his accolades as King of the keyboards, often showed that solos weren't his strong point either. Rick Wright isn't really on a par with the others as far as technique and dynamics go, but he was unbeatable at soundscapes and atmosphere, solos weren't really ever his domain. Banks is another fine foot soldier of the keys, and can boast many fine moments in performance, but not in solos of any stature.
Solos are almost another context from what the keyboardist does in his other routine functions as part of the band. It's the moment when he stands apart from the others and takes centre stage. The content of the solo can't be just fast or flashy (though that can help!), it has to be meaningful. Personally, the finest piano solo I've heard in recen times is from a virtual pop radio song 'That's the way it is'. It sparkles and jumps and never settles into wondering what the next note is, it soars over the cliff and takes its chances. That's what I call a solo.
And that was the point I was trying to make ... it is not exactly a solo when the musician is concentrating on coloring the moment and making the piece stonger adn more vivid, even in a visual context.
To me, great music, doesn't need solo's, though it can have them.
I like to listen to Terje Rypdal, and when you listen to "Odyssey" or later "Eos" ... that is symphonic as heck, disguised in a jazz style, and the second example in a rock/chambermusic style ... which many here will never appreciate because it doesn't have a beat!
It's easy to say ... Stevie Ray Vaughn is all solo ... and he is not. His coloring of the music and extending of it is phenomenal and the same creativity that gives us a Jimi Hendrix, or a Terje Rypdal (see above) that we can not figure out how to label, except totally ignore, of course.
... But we’re talking purely about solos here. I agree that the Greenslade guys are great players, but that kind of jazz soloing is more about freehand doodling than it is about thought or true participation in the songs or meaning of the pieces, it’s often selfish, self-indulgent, disconnected, and nothing to do with the heart of any composition at all – it’s a different approach.
That was my point. Sure it could be said that in Firth of Fifth that Steve Hackett had some fun playing his guitar ... and then ... what would that say for the "story in the music" ... nothing?
Sometimes the solo makes sense, and is intrinsic to the story and flow of the composition. I have no issues with that ... but what made "progressive" music, was never about the solos. It's like saying that KC's first album was all solo's, and it wasn't. And the lyrics and the music are extremelly clear what the whole thing is about, including the little ticks around Greg Lake in "Epitath" ... it's very "symbolic" of what the whole thing is about.
In the end, just doing a solo, defeats the purpose of having anything to say. However, that is not to say that Miles Davis had nothing to say ... he did, in a different context ... his was ... music needs to be free ... and solos are freedom for the player, completely away from anything in the music ... maybe ... though it may have a relationship that is ellusive, as in the case of Miles Davis, but he found a way to bring it back together and make it sound right!
That's not to say that there are not some beautifull passages in the progressive world .. hard to not love what Rick Wright does in Echoes, or Attom Heart Mother, for that matter. Hard to not enjoy Rick Wakeman in Close to the Edge. And hard to not appreciate Caravan in For Richard ... until you hear "The New Sinfonia" and your definition of "progressive" now takes a massive hit, or the people who did all this are geniuses and we're idiots ... the whole thing is so symphonic and has always been for me ... as far as Caravan ... but no ...we call it progressive and solos! And no one is capable of looking at this work as more than just some rock band doing solos!
I don't dislike "solos", and even Vangelis, Klaus Schulze, Mike Oldfield, Tangerine Dream could be accused of abusing the priviledge ... but for crying out loud ... make sure you decide if all you want is a solo, because that, in and of itself is NOT progressive, or what the music EVER was all about at all. Doesn't mean that there could not be one or two or three of them here and there ... but it does mean that the music is going to suffer, because now we're reducing it to music that has no meaning, except a solo ... that usually has not a whole lot of relationship to the music itself. Too much rock music is nothing but a setup for the solo and nothing else, and specially so for a myriad of bands that call themselves "prog"!
Edited by moshkito - January 25 2011 at 18:44
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17524
Posted: January 25 2011 at 18:57
moshkito wrote:
I don't dislike "solos", and even Vangelis, Klaus Schulze, Mike Oldfield, Tangerine Dream could be accused of abusing the priviledge ... but for crying out loud ... make sure you decide if all you want is a solo, because that, in and of itself is NOT progressive, or what the music EVER was all about at all. Doesn't mean that there could not be one or two or three of them here and there ... but it does mean that the music is going to suffer, because now we're reducing it to music that has no meaning, except a solo ... that usually has not a whole lot of relationship to the music itself. Too much rock music is nothing but a setup for the solo and nothing else, and specially so for a myriad of bands that call themselves "prog"!
And one more thing about solo's ... even in jazz, I am not sure that most folks are simply playing an instrument as a "solo", for the sake of just playing a solo, and the music behind it, or with it, are meaningless. In general, and rock music is very good at this, too much of the music is a setup for a solo, guitar usually, and then back to the song ... and if you were the producer or engineer, you could take that solo out ... and you still have a song ... but just not the same impact!
Also with this, is the society that we live in ... everything is fame and fortune and the "star" ... and guess what we are doing with many of these bands and situations ... we're glorifying the most visible of them all ... and their "solo", because they stand out ... more than the rest of the group. And a lot of music suffers because of that ... and loses its inherant strength.
Thus, in a "progressive" music world, in general, there would not be solos needed, because it is about the music ... not the solos or the soloist. The same thing with Beethoven, or Tchaikovsly ... you listen to that Symphony, not the first violin, or the first flute, or whatever ... and we're lowering the standard of the music if all we can think of is ... "solo" ... Layla is not a pair of solos ... it's a beautiful duet of two singers or lovers, if you will ... that created amonster piece of beauty ... but to say that all it is is a solo ... kinda defeats the beauty and the connection that created the piece in the first place.
It has to be about the music ... not the solos.
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com
Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 28064
Posted: January 26 2011 at 16:10
moshkito wrote:
moshkito wrote:
I don't dislike "solos", and even Vangelis, Klaus Schulze, Mike Oldfield, Tangerine Dream could be accused of abusing the priviledge ... but for crying out loud ... make sure you decide if all you want is a solo, because that, in and of itself is NOT progressive, or what the music EVER was all about at all. Doesn't mean that there could not be one or two or three of them here and there ... but it does mean that the music is going to suffer, because now we're reducing it to music that has no meaning, except a solo ... that usually has not a whole lot of relationship to the music itself. Too much rock music is nothing but a setup for the solo and nothing else, and specially so for a myriad of bands that call themselves "prog"!
And one more thing about solo's ... even in jazz, I am not sure that most folks are simply playing an instrument as a "solo", for the sake of just playing a solo, and the music behind it, or with it, are meaningless. In general, and rock music is very good at this, too much of the music is a setup for a solo, guitar usually, and then back to the song ... and if you were the producer or engineer, you could take that solo out ... and you still have a song ... but just not the same impact!
Also with this, is the society that we live in ... everything is fame and fortune and the "star" ... and guess what we are doing with many of these bands and situations ... we're glorifying the most visible of them all ... and their "solo", because they stand out ... more than the rest of the group. And a lot of music suffers because of that ... and loses its inherant strength.
Thus, in a "progressive" music world, in general, there would not be solos needed, because it is about the music ... not the solos or the soloist. The same thing with Beethoven, or Tchaikovsly ... you listen to that Symphony, not the first violin, or the first flute, or whatever ... and we're lowering the standard of the music if all we can think of is ... "solo" ... Layla is not a pair of solos ... it's a beautiful duet of two singers or lovers, if you will ... that created amonster piece of beauty ... but to say that all it is is a solo ... kinda defeats the beauty and the connection that created the piece in the first place.
It has to be about the music ... not the solos.
Just out of interest what's your opinion of Focus ''Hocus Pocus''? Do you like it?
Joined: January 24 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8618
Posted: January 26 2011 at 17:44
It would be great to have Karajan again! Especially Karajan, and also conductor Ferenc Fricsay, were concious of what soloing in an instrument could do and achieve without losing track of "the organic whole"of a piece of music like a symphony or overture-in their recordings the soloing is great in itself, but the overall flow of the music is not lost I love it when groups like ELP, Triumvirat, Le Orme, etc. have a classical influence in their music-when done the best, soloing and the overall flow exist hand in hand and in harmony with each other I find that some of the continental European progressive groups are the best at doing this, like Le Orme, Triade, Triumvirat, The Trip, but not forgetting trend setters like ELP and Genesis
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17524
Posted: January 26 2011 at 17:52
richardh wrote:
Just out of interest what's your opinion of Focus ''Hocus Pocus''? Do you like it?
Great song.
Better album, specially Eruption on the other side, which is far better.
But with Focus, I would be likely to question the "progressive" versus the "solo" material a lot more, since it did look like some very good setups for Jan Akkerman's guitar, and they did very well with it, including creating some excellent stuff, probably more centered on blues/rock styled music, although I think they took liberty with it and used a lot more "classical music" design and concepts, probably because Thijs Van Leer was classically educated (check out his solo albums) ... as I think some of the others also were. At least well aware of the musical concepts.
Favorite album of theirs for me? ... Hamburger Concerto ... and thinking of that, I'm hungry.
I would not, however, confuse this band with "progressive", which in my book, they are in between, but it is, like Renaissance and other bands at the time (was thinking Eksception) were the same thing, but without the big hit.
At the time, there were a lot of groups, that we do not exactly consider "progressive" that were taking a lot of their cue from classical music and ... just doing it with rock instruments ... is the way I say it. I suppose that it could be said that these had more solos than ... let's say ... Tales from Topographic Oceans ... but many here are simply going to say that TFTO is all solos and nothing else ... but to me, TFTO doesn't mean anything -- specially with its lyrics -- if all it is made of, is a bunch of solos. It's excellent and meaningful music, but I would not compare it to Focus or any of the work they did.
And of course, Hocus Pocus, is lots of fun, and makes you want to grab a guitar or bass and just rip into it ... you can just about do anything with it!
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.