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.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
Do the Beatles get too much credit.. |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 1920212223 28> |
| Author | |||
Floydman 
Forum Groupie 
Joined: November 24 2009 Status: Offline Points: 67 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: February 28 2011 at 22:12 |
||
I have to say whether the Beatles invented psychedelic rock really doesn't matter because that is very subjective. When the Byrds created "Eight Miles High" they weren't thinking about writing the psychedelic experience. They were just trying to write an Indian based song using rock instrumentation. The Beatles were already writing basically an early flower power song in the "The Word". But if you listen to one of the unreleased takes of "Norwegian Wood" the Beatles sound stoned and psychedelic. Though, IMO when they got to songs like "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "I'm Only Sleeping" they were trying to capture on tape what the psychedelic experience was. I think "Tomorrow Never Knows" at least is one of the first full blown psych songs.
The Beatles weren't first rockers to use Indian influences but they may have been the first rockers to use non-blues modalities as far back as "Love Me Do" which is more folk like than blues. Certainly, "Norwegian Wood' sitar, three modal shifts alone is not based on blues modality. George Harrison was the first rock guitarist that I know of who was writing or playing sitar based songs and using the tamboura drones in rock songs. Anyone who listens to "Love You To" knows it truly based on Indian modal practice and instrumentation. 'Love You To" is far more truer to classical Indian music than what the Beatles did earlier on "Norwegian Wood" or the Byrds excellent "Eight Miles High".
What's important the Beatles were fundamental to the genre of psychedelic rock I don't think anyone thinks the Beatles invented musique concrete. I have never heard of it. I have read the Beatles and it's plain as can be that the Beatles were the first to use loops, and backward music to create psychedelic rock music in mind and eastern sonorities in mind on Revolver and "Rain". The backward guitar lines on "I'm Only Sleeping" and backward vocals were attempts in trying to create Indian sounds in their songs. Of course the loops created on 'Tomorrow Never Knows" and 'Strawberry Fields Forever" not only sound hallucinatory but they both frame the end of the their songs creating a real surreal effect. Pink Floyd did something similiar to this on the end of "Bike" which ends the song with sound collage coda. Look there are so many examples of the Beatles being very innovative it's almost an insult to them to be honest.
Edited by Floydman - February 28 2011 at 22:32 |
|||
 |
|||
|
Floydman
Forum Groupie
Joined: November 24 2009 Status: Offline Points: 67 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: February 28 2011 at 21:43 |
||
I actually view "Tomorrow Never Knows" as the number one rock song in terms of innovation in the 60's. It basically predicts much of modern electronic music and pop music. With it's Automatic Double Tracking vocals, live looping techniques, processed leslie vocal effects, backward guitar breaks, ambient sounding looped effects, chorus effects and most off all that drum and bass sound right in your face and built on repetition. It was so ahead of it's time that bands like the Chemical Brothers were citing that oddness of house music was largely influenced by this track.
The Beatles deseve the credit they get. I don't think there is a rock band who gets more serious essays written about their music than the Beatles. I remember reading that Bernstein said the Beatles had this Schubert like flow of invention to their music. Or Bob Dylan saying the Beatles were doing things nobody was doing and he was talking about their harmonies and chord progressions. Now if that is not innovation or originality in terms of what came before the Beatles in rock and roll then what are we talking about? Let's look at some of the songs we are talking about.
Let's take a song like "Taxman". It's built upon a funky bass-line and the heavy use of the Hendrix chord. The concept is quite common in funk and hard rock. You think by the term the Hendrix chord you would think that Hendrix invented the chord. Well, of course Hendrix and the Beatles didn't invent the chord. But it's heavy use or highly distorted use of it on "Taxman" pre-dates Jim Hendrix own use of it on "Foxey Lady" by almost a year.
We know the Beatles used intentional amp guitar feedback with a guitar riff driven song on "I Feel Fine" I guess that wen't down well with the Kinks "I Need You" and Jimi Hendrix "Foxey Lady".
Then there is something like "A Day In the Life" with it's blending classical music sections and rock sections. But in between those sections the Beatles add a new twist Paul bridge section. Paul section not only adds a new singer, but a new song, a new rhythm and a entirely different outlook than what John was singing.
There are more examples.
I admit I love the Beatles but I was originally more into Pink Floyd but like someone else said I looked into the bands who influenced Pink Floyd. Syd Barrett constantly listened to Revolver and the other songs the Beatles were doing. There is a whole chapter about the Beatles influence on Pink Floyd in the book "Every Sound There is" The Beatles Revolver and the Transformation of Rock and Roll Edited by Russell Reising.
The most important thing is the Beatles were great songwriters who were very musical. I think some of the prog-heads here can't wrap their minds around that point of songwriting being more important than playing songs that were 10 minutes long that just ramble along with nothing to it. Edited by Floydman - February 28 2011 at 21:53 |
|||
|
|||
|
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group 
Site Admin Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Vancouver, BC Status: Offline Points: 36460 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: February 28 2011 at 21:41 |
||
Can't listen to that now as I'm on a computer that I don't have the speakers connected to, but will be interested. Early on the conversation got sidetracked to "influence" (Floydman was talking about it at some length) when I wished to focus on claims of invention as well as innovation. I certainly had a somewhat lively discussion with Floydman early on in the thread, and while I may agree with much that he says, it's also rather at cross-purposes to the avenue of discussion I wished to explore, and think there was some misunderstanding of intent early on. I think the Beatles (with the help of certain people) were adept at adapting to their medium, but doubt many claims of origination. I think comments that I've heard such as The Beatles invented rock music, the Beatles came out with the first psych song, the Beatles were the first to incorporate Indian modalities into Western, or rock/pop, music, as well as comments I've heard about techniques they pioneered which were being used already (say in musique concrete) are over-the-top. And to hear that the Beatles deserve every ounce of credit they have ever been given (such as, say, Mr. X who claims that Ringo Starr invented the double-stick drumming technique) is a bit silly. They popularised a lot of things. There's nothing wrong with that. Composers/ musicians are influenced by others. Even if they are the most influential, pioneering and inventive musicians/composers/ band in the history of the universe, I would still think claims that I've heard in my years are weak. Of course they were hugely influential, and had a massive impact on music. Edited by Logan - February 28 2011 at 21:42 |
|||
|
|||
|
Floydman
Forum Groupie
Joined: November 24 2009 Status: Offline Points: 67 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: February 28 2011 at 21:08 |
||
Bob Weir of the Grateful Dead "The Beatles were why we turned from a jug band into a rock 'n' roll band," said Bob Weir. "What we saw them doing was impossibly attractive. I couldn't think of anything else more worth doing" Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys "Upon first hearing Rubber Soul in December of 1965, Brian Wilson said, “I really wasn’t quite ready for the unity. It felt like it all belonged together. Rubber Soul was a collection of songs…that somehow went together like no album ever made before". Roger McGuinn of the Byrds "As I said, we were influenced by The Beatles, and we wanted to be a band like that, and when I was working with Bobby Darin, and then in the Brill Building, my job was to listen to the radio, and emulate the songs that were out there. I had already been working on mixing The Beatles’ music with folk music in Greenwich Village, and I had noticed that they were using folk-influenced chords in their music. They used passing chords that were not common in rock’n’roll and pop songs of that time. I remember listening to them, and thinking that the Beatles were using folding chord construction. That comes from their skiffle roots, they will have learned those chords in their skiffle days, and just brought them into their own writing.” Pete Townshend of the Who "In a 1967 interview Pete Townshend of the Who commented "I think "Eleanor Rigby" was a very important musical move forward. It certainly inspired me to write and listen to things in that vein" Robert Fripp on hearing the Beatles Sgt Pepper Robert Fripp- "When I was 20, I worked at a hotel in a dance orchestra, playing weddings, bar-mitzvahs, dancing, cabaret. I drove home and I was also at college at the time. Then I put on the radio (Radio Luxemburg) and I heard this music. It was terrifying. I had no idea what it was. Then it kept going. Then there was this enormous whine note of strings. Then there was this colossal piano chord. I discovered later that I'd come in half-way through Sgt. Pepper, played continuously. My life was never the same again" Some of the reaction towards "Strawberry Fields Forever" "Brian Wilson of The Beach Boys said that "Strawberry Fields Forever" was partially responsible for the shelving of his group's legendary unfinished album, Smile. Wilson first heard the song on his car radio whilst driving, and was so affected that he had to stop and listen to it all the way through. He then remarked to his passenger that The Beatles had already reached the sound The Beach Boys had wanted to achieve. Paul Revere & The Raiders were among the most successful US groups during 1966 and 1967, having their own Dick Clark-produced television show, Where the Action Is. Mark Lindsay (singer/saxophonist) heard the song on the radio, bought it, and then listened to it at home with his producer at the time, Terry Melcher. When the song ended Lindsay said, "Now what the f**k are we gonna do?" later saying, "With that single, The Beatles raised the ante as to what a pop record should be" |
|||
|
|||
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer 
Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: February 28 2011 at 20:51 |
||
That is a much more interesting line of debate but a lot of people have jumped into the fray to deny even their influence as a product of media marketing, so the debate got distorted. Hmmm, if anybody has the energy and tenacity to refute Floydman....  I am really not so sure about innovation. There was a Hindi music composer in the 50s who used to write elegant suite-based songs (that moved in a linear direction rather than a pop repeat cycle) based on Indian melody, long before Beatles graduated from Love Me Do to Day in a Life. I had then asked my friends if they knew of any Western light music (so I am excluding jazz and classical music, obviously jazz was far reaching in the 50s) songwriters who did something similar in the 50s. They didn't turn up anybody. Would like to see if somebody here turns up some names, would be a very interesting pursuit. Just for argument's sake - and not to push this music on anybody, I swear  - I am posting an example of what I mean: |
|||
|
|||
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: February 28 2011 at 20:45 |
||
You mean, myself? I guess we were arguing at cross purposes then. |
|||
|
|||
|
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group
Site Admin Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Vancouver, BC Status: Offline Points: 36460 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: February 28 2011 at 20:41 |
||
|
I would like to mention that while many have discussed influence, the question was whether they get too much credit in terms of innovation AND origination (inventiveness).
As I said in the opening post, "Undoubtedly the Beatles were hugely influential (has been incredibly popular), but do you think/feel that the Beatles commonly get too much credit and/or consideration in terms of innovation and origination?" Edited by Logan - February 28 2011 at 20:42 |
|||
|
|||
|
AllP0werToSlaves
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: July 29 2009 Status: Offline Points: 249 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: February 28 2011 at 20:37 |
||
Your Mantas/Death/Metallica example was spot on; I could of sworn I had an argument with someone earlier in this thread debating this very fact.
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: February 28 2011 at 20:26 |
||
Influence in rock music does to a large extent flow from popularity. If a well known band does something innovative, it will catch the attention of more people than an obscure band. Mantas had a decent prototype of death metal in 1983 and yet Metallica and Slayer are more INFLUENTIAL. Funnily enough, more people talk about the influence of Death, which came a few years later by which time thrash was already advancing towards the then new death metal genre in the form of Kreator and Sepultura (and therefore not frankly THAT revolutionary re the early Death). How does that work? I hope you get my point. Rock music is still a young genre so popular artists will pull more weight for some time...until musicians start going back to the archives and reviving lost threads and then we may see something like the revival of Bach. That is, provided rock develops such a culture of serious appreciation of music from an academic standpoint and of fairly giving innovative artists their due. Sorry to say, we couldn't be any further from that at present and the media and critics ensure we are forcefed popular bands only, no matter how crappy they are. I mean, once there were light showers in November (unseasonal here) and the resident 'rock critic' wrote about November Rain. Gimme a break! Not relevant here, but just saying. Anyhow, the point is there may well have been more innovative bands than Beatles in the 60s, I wouldn't hazard to comment on that but Beatles were more INFLUENTIAL, the two words are not interchangeable as much as we'd wish they were in the world of music. Edited by rogerthat - February 28 2011 at 20:28 |
|||
|
|||
|
40footwolf
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 08 2010 Status: Offline Points: 651 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: February 28 2011 at 20:16 |
||
|
Chill out, dude. I like the Beatles.
People don't talk about the influences of those other bands because they weren't nearly as big as the Beatles. If they were as big as the Beatles, then time should be given to exploring their roots, too. It should anyway. Also, I know it's a lot of work, but I'd like to see one or two sources on the idea that King Crimson formed because of the Beatles and all that good stuff.
|
|||
|
Heaven's made a cesspool of us all.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Floydman
Forum Groupie
Joined: November 24 2009 Status: Offline Points: 67 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: February 28 2011 at 19:37 |
||
No I give credit where it's due OK. You think Zappa music was made out of thin air or without influence. He basically was putting Stravinsky composition styles into 50's vocal styles on Freak Out. Everybody has influences. As for the Beatles maybe you don't get what I am saying. A lot of their popularity was due to their great songwriting and innovation. You think people like Bob Dylan or classical composers were raving about the Beatles chord progressions and melodies because they were popular. You think Stockhausen liked Pop Music? He hated pop music.
Come back to me when San Francisco bands were using the studio as creatively as 'Tomorrow Never Knows", "Strawberry Fields Forever" or writing songs like "Eleanor Rigby" or "A Day in the Life". All those songs are as distinct or even more than how Hendrix or British Rockers were putting the blues into rock music. Yet, I don't hear people like you complaining about the people who influenced Hendrix or Clapton. Yet when it's the Beatles the people who influenced the Beatles are not getting the supposed credit they deserve. Uh, maybe the people who influenced the Beatles weren't writing albums like Revolver or writing songs like "Yesterday" or even something like "Happiness Is A Warm Gun". The Beatles always gave props to who influenced them but there is a point in time where A the people who influenced the Beatles doesn't = B what the Beatles were doing musicially anymore.
As for influence it went back and forth. Sorry if you and some other people here can't deal with the facts that maybe the Beatles had talent and created their own sort of classical world of music. That maybe the thousands of musicians were influenced by the Beatles saw it clearer than you or LEAST WEASEL. I hate revisionist history. If it was about influence than every Rolling Stones or Animals song or any other song in the history of rock music you could say has it's ties to something that came before them.
The point no matter how you cut it The Beatles started the British Invasion which started this great Transatlantic dialogue between Amercian and British Rockers. The Beatles influenced the Rolling Stones to write their own songs, they influenced the Byrds and countless rock bands to form, they influenced the Beach Boys Pet Sounds, they influenced largely the founding members of Progressive King Crimson, Power Pop Big Star and Krautrock Can to form in the first place. That is only the tipping point. I mean how many artists were compelled to record their own versions of "Yesterday" or other Beatles songs? How many bands were compelled to equal Sgt. Pepper? Ray Davies basically rewrote "Waterloo Sunset" after hearing "Penny Lane" and Pete Townshend changed his outlook on songwriting after hearing "Eleanor Rigby". Roger McGuinn when recording "Younger Than Yesterday" album was trying to equal Rubber Soul and Revolver. Yes the Beatles had influences but they created their own musical world also. Give credit where it's due.
You said that Sgt. Pepper was taking a lot from the playbook from Zappa Freak Out. Yes the Beatles particulary Paul liked Freak Out but musicially and structurely they were entirely different. For one Sgt. Pepper has songs that were bookended with cross-faded tracks with looped sound effects connecting the tracks. It starts with an opening "Sgt. Pepper/With A Little Help From My Friends" and it ends with it's recurring theme based on a reprise "Sgt Pepper" followed by an encore "A Day In the Life". Even though it's not a narrative concept album like The Who Tommy or many other albums. Sgt. Pepper structure for the time was unique and influential especially on bands like Pink Floyd. People make a big deal that Sgt. Pepper was not the first rock concept album but neither was Pet Sounds nor Freak Out the first rock concept albums either. Edited by Floydman - February 28 2011 at 20:20 |
|||
|
|||
|
40footwolf
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 08 2010 Status: Offline Points: 651 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: February 28 2011 at 18:38 |
||
So your thesis is that nobody should give a sh*t that tons and tons of other bands and composers influenced the Beatles because they weren't as popular as the Beatles. Neato.
|
|||
|
Heaven's made a cesspool of us all.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group
Site Admin Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Vancouver, BC Status: Offline Points: 36460 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: February 28 2011 at 14:06 |
||
I agree with your points. |
|||
|
|||
|
Floydman
Forum Groupie
Joined: November 24 2009 Status: Offline Points: 67 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: February 28 2011 at 13:43 |
||
This is no different than what Hendrix did with existing techniques like guitar feedback, distortion and putting his stamp on it. So the Beatles were influenced by Stockhausen and Xenakis but they weren't the only ones. I think the Beatles work with looping, sampling and other electronic ideas in the context of mixing it in rock and pop music or putting it out to people who didn't know those techniques are now common recording strategies in popular music now.
Take "Tomorrow Never Knows' the loops were mixed live, they were recorded backwards, one was altered to sound like seagulls, and all those loops were created in a sound collage form. Some will say that "I Want You (She's So Heavy" was influenced by Xenakis. Still the building white noise sound over the overdubbed fuzz guitar sounds is very inventive. Take George Harrison he records his guitar parts on "I'm Only Sleeping" while the tape is running backwards. You think Jimi Hendrix didn't take notice the next year on "Are You Experienced? The Beatles were great songwriters. The Beatles like all great musicians should explore other areas outside of their genre. They mixed both greatly and that in turn exposed people who might not care or know to put into their music. Edited by Floydman - February 28 2011 at 13:47 |
|||
|
|||
|
Floydman
Forum Groupie
Joined: November 24 2009 Status: Offline Points: 67 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: February 28 2011 at 13:02 |
||
I think the Beatles in many ways don't get the credit they deserve. The San Francisco bands like the Jefferson Airplane, and the Grateful Dead were largely influenced by the Beatles to form as rock bands in the first place. The Byrds also formed largely in part because of the Beatles also. Without those bands and the Beatles influence in the first place are we talking about folk rock and psychedelic rock in the first place?
Frank Zappa and the 13th Floor Elevators like it or not were blimp on the screens when the Beatles were recording Rubber Soul, "Rain" and Revolver. Psychedelic Rock, and Progressive Rock would have made without Frank Zappa and the 13 Floor Elevators. Stockhausen said this "John Lennon (The Beatles) were the greatest mediators between serious music and popular music". The Beatles were able to translate their innovative chord progressions and experimental tendencies to the masses. Remember it was these songs "A Day in the Life" and "I Am The Walrus" that influenced Robert Fripp King Crimson Progressive Rock and Can Krautrock to form as bands in the first place.
The Beatles sold millions of records with songs like "Tomorrow Never Knows", "A Day in the Life", "Strawberry Fields Forever" etcc. in their catalog. Those songs not only expanded the parameters of pop music but they gave a huge audience to it also. Musicians like Syd Barrett constantly listened to Revolver and other Beatles releases.
Musically speaking the Beatles had influences but so does every band. Then again, I don't get what San Francisco bands were doing in 65-66 have in common in what the Beatles were doing. Some of the examples are '
"Eleanor Rigby"- Dorian Mode, two chords, strings as a rhythm with no rock instruments with just vocals
"Tomorrow Never Knows"- Acid drenched loops and ambient looped effects mxed live, backward guitar lines, harmonically hardly any harmonic motion and it's up front drum and bass repetitive ostinato. Not only did Jerry Garcia flipped over this track but it influence carried over to modern electronic bands like the Chemical Brothers.
"Yellow Submarine- Might be a slight song but it's use of spoken megaphone dialogue I wonder if Syd Barrett took notice "Astromony Domine" and ambient sounds frames the break.
"Norwegian Wood"- 3/4 time, mixolyding verse and sitar riff, moving to parallel dorian and then going to Ionian.
"Strawberry Fields Forever"- Is one of those song where the theme of the song (the lyrical idea) is reflected in the chords and structure of the tune. The track has these surreal poetic images, odd rhyhtms, disorienting electronic sounds, unexpected changes, odd ochestration effects, reverse cymbal effects and George Harrison raga like scales from Svarmandal. The the song ends with a false ending/silence/ coming back with this hallucinatory sound collage coda with John mumbling "Cranberry Sauce" in which people who thought was Paul was dead as "I buried Paul".
Yes, other musicians were experimenting in rock music but the San Francisco bands and Frank Zappa were not writing songs of the quality of say "A Day in the Life" but they in the same process were not able to translate their music to the masses as say the Beatles. For example, there is 3.000 cover versions of "Yesterday" that musicians felt compelled to cover. The buying public felt compelled to buy Sgt. Pepper even though there is not one single or pop friendly song released from that album. You think future prog and heavy metal bands like King Crimson or Black Sabbath didn't benifit from the Beatles example of not releasing singles from albums like Sgt. Pepper or the White Album. Nothing against Frank Zappa or the 13th Floor Elevators were not doing any of the establishing of Progressive Rock, or Psychedelic Rock even though they might have been making that kind of music. The facts are the Beatles by virtue of their songwriting and talents were able to translate this to the buying public. Edited by Floydman - February 28 2011 at 13:45 |
|||
|
|||
|
BarryGlibb
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 28 2010 Location: Melbourne, Oz Status: Offline Points: 1781 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: February 27 2011 at 03:19 |
||
|
Simply put, the answer is "No"
|
|||
|
|||
|
40footwolf
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 08 2010 Status: Offline Points: 651 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: February 27 2011 at 02:18 |
||
Barking Weasel is something of a provocateur. Take what he says with a grain of salt.
|
|||
|
Heaven's made a cesspool of us all.
|
|||
|
|||
|
resurrection
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 08 2010 Location: London Status: Offline Points: 254 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: February 27 2011 at 01:47 |
||
|
|||
|
|||
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007 Location: Penal Colony Status: Offline Points: 11420 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: February 24 2011 at 02:53 |
||
Perceptive post certainly. The Beatles were the biggest band on the planet of any genre before Sgt Pepper, Crimson were just the biggest Prog band on the planet after In the Court. |
|||
|
|||
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 16 2006 Location: FL, USA Status: Offline Points: 17493 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: February 23 2011 at 22:32 |
||
|
Would the Beatles of Sgt Pepper and the other proggy records had been so famous if they hadn't released a lot of pop albums before? What if King Crimson had released two or three pop albums with #1 singles all around before releasing ITCOTCK?
Edited by The T - February 23 2011 at 22:32 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 1920212223 28> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions 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 |
Topic Options
Logan wrote: