Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
Guldbamsen
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin
Joined: January 22 2009
Location: Magic Theatre
Status: Offline
Points: 23104
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 16:03 |
If you read through all of my post Ivan, you would perhaps also spot why I chose to write that about pop. Depending on the discussion, I find it helpful that people have their definitions straight, which you obviously got, and especially when we are talking about something as fleeting as pop. Of course I know what pop is in this instance, but yeah thanks for highlighting the obvious and killing my mojo...
|
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 16:07 |
Guldbamsen wrote:
If you read through all of my post Ivan, you would perhaps also spot why I chose to write that about pop. Depending on the discussion, I find it helpful that people have their definitions straight, which you obviously got, and especially when we are talking about something as fleeting as pop. Of course I know what pop is in this instance, but yeah thanks for highlighting the obvious and killing my mojo... |
Not so obvious, I have read in this forum hundreds of times that POP = Popular.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - June 05 2012 at 16:08
|
|
|
dtguitarfan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 16:20 |
Failcore wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
There are still obscure bands in the lineup. Glen has to sell tickets, and this has been a problem, to the point that he's saying if it doesn't sell out ir come close this year, he's done. So OF COURSE he booked a few bigger names this year. Sad thing is it still hasn't sold out...yet. | Well, there's an example of market forces at work in prog right there. It's not Glen's fault, but he's still having to play the game. I really think he could benefit by getting some prog groups not related to metal. In other words, axe Nightwish, and add TMV or some such. As the festival has been going more and more towards the power side of ProgPower, they have been narrowing their appeal to an already small audience. The set of people who like prog is fairly tiny; the set of people who like prog and metal is tiny^2 .
|
Say what you will. I'm actually EXTREMELY happy with the lineup. I'm going to get albums from the following signed: Symphony X (!!!! - they're going to be mad at me I'm going to have so many things for them to sign) Epica Redemption Beyond the Bridge Serenity So, definitely no problems here.
|
|
|
AtomicCrimsonRush
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 02 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 14258
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 21:21 |
OP was interesting with the clip and how they can fix bad off tune singing in the studio - it really is talentless manufactured pop these days. When Elvis became a superstar it was because the man could actually sing, the same as The Beatles. If Lady GaGa was really fat and ugly she would not stand a chance, same as Bieber and Beyonce.
|
|
|
darkshade
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: November 19 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 10964
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 21:27 |
AtomicCrimsonRush wrote:
If Lady GaGa was really fat and ugly she would not stand a chance, same as Bieber and Beyonce. |
|
|
|
Horizons
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: January 20 2011
Location: Somewhere Else
Status: Offline
Points: 16952
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 21:50 |
Disagree with Lady Gaga.
Others? yea
|
Crushed like a rose in the riverflow.
|
|
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
|
Posted: June 06 2012 at 15:39 |
There are two different kinds of music manipulations.
One kind are effects that can not be achieved by the musician's technique, no matter how good he/she is. For example a chorus or flanger, there is no way a guitarist can play a clean guitar and make it sound with chorus. The same goes for soundscape effects, for example the sound of breaking sea waves to give some atmosphere to some music segment.
The other kind are manipulations which objective is to release effort or skill from the musician.
For example most modern keyboards / sythns have "arpeggiator" funcions so you just lay a chord and they play it as an arpeggio, at arbitrary speed and at the arpeggio sequence you choose. Or guitar pitch shifter / octaver effects in which you play single notes and the effect adds a 5th or/and a 3rd (major or minor if you have specified in which key the music is) so it sounds like you are playing chords when you are just playing single notes.
In this group there would also be those effects which effectively mask sloppy playing.
I have no problem with artificial sound manipulations when their purpose is providing things that the player could never provide no matter how good he/she is, but I do not like manipulations when the purpose is to supersede the ability of the performer.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: June 06 2012 at 16:10 |
^ without an arpeggiator we would never have had Baba O'Riley. Skill is not always in the playing, but in the knowing what to do with it.
Edited by Dean - June 06 2012 at 16:10
|
What?
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: June 06 2012 at 17:05 |
Gerinski wrote:
I have no problem with artificial sound manipulations when their purpose is providing things that the player could never provide no matter how good he/she is, but I do not like manipulations when the purpose is to supersede the ability of the performer. |
If you get rid of things like that, say goodbye to almost all electronic music. There would be no Tangerine Dream, Klaus Schulze, Autechre, Aphex Twin, or daft punk without step sequencers, drum machines, delays, and so on. Could everything be played by a person? Probably, if you had 20 people in the group.
I think people should stop getting so hung up on the fact that people use machines to make music. If we take away the machines for some vague "purity" reasons, the only thing we do is deny ourselves of music that wouldn't exist otherwise.
It's really quite lame.
|
|
|
dtguitarfan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
|
Posted: June 06 2012 at 18:12 |
stonebeard wrote:
Gerinski wrote:
I have no problem with artificial sound manipulations when their purpose is providing things that the player could never provide no matter how good he/she is, but I do not like manipulations when the purpose is to supersede the ability of the performer. |
If you get rid of things like that, say goodbye to almost all electronic music. There would be no Tangerine Dream, Klaus Schulze, Autechre, Aphex Twin, or daft punk without step sequencers, drum machines, delays, and so on. Could everything be played by a person? Probably, if you had 20 people in the group. I think people should stop getting so hung up on the fact that people use machines to make music. If we take away the machines for some vague "purity" reasons, the only thing we do is deny ourselves of music that wouldn't exist otherwise. It's really quite lame. |
The problem is when there's a "wizard of oz" artist - a person who can't sing well, doesn't write music, and doesn't play music, but is pretty, so the infustry uses tricks to convince teeny-boppers that this person is talented. And the real problem is when the industry shoves actual talent in the corner in favor of this "wizard of oz" music.
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: June 06 2012 at 18:17 |
dtguitarfan wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Gerinski wrote:
I have no problem with artificial sound manipulations when their purpose is providing things that the player could never provide no matter how good he/she is, but I do not like manipulations when the purpose is to supersede the ability of the performer. |
If you get rid of things like that, say goodbye to almost all electronic music. There would be no Tangerine Dream, Klaus Schulze, Autechre, Aphex Twin, or daft punk without step sequencers, drum machines, delays, and so on. Could everything be played by a person? Probably, if you had 20 people in the group. I think people should stop getting so hung up on the fact that people use machines to make music. If we take away the machines for some vague "purity" reasons, the only thing we do is deny ourselves of music that wouldn't exist otherwise. It's really quite lame. |
The problem is when there's a "wizard of oz" artist - a person who can't sing well, doesn't write music, and doesn't play music, but is pretty, so the infustry uses tricks to convince teeny-boppers that this person is talented. And the real problem is when the industry shoves actual talent in the corner in favor of this "wizard of oz" music. | It isn't a problem. It's commerce. People want to be entertained, not necessarily "appreciate" anything.
So until you start a record label and make it commercially successful by signing on true talent and making the masses appreciate it, you'll continue to be upset over this.
Or you'll just realize that this is how it is and get over it and enjoy whatever it is you do.
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: June 06 2012 at 18:28 |
dtguitarfan wrote:
The problem is when there's a "wizard of oz" artist - a person who can't sing well, doesn't write music, and doesn't play music, but is pretty, so the infustry uses tricks to convince teeny-boppers that this person is talented. And the real problem is when the industry shoves actual talent in the corner in favor of this "wizard of oz" music. |
Why is this a problem?
|
What?
|
|
dtguitarfan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
|
Posted: June 06 2012 at 18:33 |
Dean wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
The problem is when there's a "wizard of oz" artist - a person who can't sing well, doesn't write music, and doesn't play music, but is pretty, so the infustry uses tricks to convince teeny-boppers that this person is talented. And the real problem is when the industry shoves actual talent in the corner in favor of this "wizard of oz" music. |
Why is this a problem? |
Dean, you are a very intelligent, knowledgeable man. But I believe that talent and hard work should be rewarded, and when this is not the case, but rather "special people" get rewarded while hard working people are passed over, I think something is wrong, and there's nothing you or anyone else can say to convince me otherwise.
|
|
|
dtguitarfan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
|
Posted: June 06 2012 at 18:40 |
Epignosis wrote:
It isn't a problem. It's commerce. People want to be entertained, not necessarily "appreciate" anything.
So until you start a record label and make it commercially successful by signing on true talent and making the masses appreciate it, you'll continue to be upset over this.
Or you'll just realize that this is how it is and get over it and enjoy whatever it is you do.
|
Now wait just a minute - you're telling me that there's nothing in your belief system that goes against the "hey, everything's cool"/"anything goes"/"it's all relative, man" attitude? Isn't there something in your personal belief system that says...oh...I dunno...that there are things that are wrong with the world, maybe? I'm not saying there's anything you or I can do about it. But I'm saying that I see something wrong here, and it bothers me, and it SHOULD. In the end: YES, I have to let it go and move on and live my life trusting that things come out the way they are meant to be even if I don't understand them.
|
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: June 06 2012 at 19:39 |
dtguitarfan wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Gerinski wrote:
I have no problem with artificial sound manipulations when their purpose is providing things that the player could never provide no matter how good he/she is, but I do not like manipulations when the purpose is to supersede the ability of the performer. |
If you get rid of things like that, say goodbye to almost all electronic music. There would be no Tangerine Dream, Klaus Schulze, Autechre, Aphex Twin, or daft punk without step sequencers, drum machines, delays, and so on. Could everything be played by a person? Probably, if you had 20 people in the group. I think people should stop getting so hung up on the fact that people use machines to make music. If we take away the machines for some vague "purity" reasons, the only thing we do is deny ourselves of music that wouldn't exist otherwise. It's really quite lame. |
The problem is when there's a "wizard of oz" artist - a person who can't sing well, doesn't write music, and doesn't play music, but is pretty, so the infustry uses tricks to convince teeny-boppers that this person is talented. And the real problem is when the industry shoves actual talent in the corner in favor of this "wizard of oz" music. |
It's not really a secret. The only people who are fooled by this are the teeny boppers, and no one cares what a 12 year old thinks about things because their opinions are full of crap.
It's not like your teen cousin is going to start listening to Periphery just because Justin Beiber turned 18 and starts doing mature RnB with some shameful has-been. There will always be a market for toss away pop music. And there is also good pop music, but kids can't be arsed to find it. Then they go into high school and like indie pop, then they go into college, and become hipsters. Then I want to have sex with them. It's a life cycle that we must respect and cherish.
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: June 06 2012 at 20:27 |
dtguitarfan wrote:
Dean wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
The problem is when there's a "wizard of oz" artist - a person who can't sing well, doesn't write music, and doesn't play music, but is pretty, so the infustry uses tricks to convince teeny-boppers that this person is talented. And the real problem is when the industry shoves actual talent in the corner in favor of this "wizard of oz" music. |
Why is this a problem? | Dean, you are a very intelligent, knowledgeable man. But I believe that talent and hard work should be rewarded, and when this is not the case, but rather "special people" get rewarded while hard working people are passed over, I think something is wrong, and there's nothing you or anyone else can say to convince me otherwise. |
I have no intention of ever trying to convince you of anything - no one has ever had their mind changed by an internet debate. If hard-work is not rewarded then the person is doing something that people don't want enough for them to be rewarded. That may sound harsh but it is a reality and complaining about it won't change a thing. The utopia you dream of actually does exist, it exists in parallel with the world you don't like, the difference is the market place for the so-called wizard of oz stuff you don't like is just so much bigger, and that's never going to change. Back in the "Golden Prog Era" of the 70s when Prog Rock was selling well, manufactured pop in the form of Teenie-bopper pin-up bands, Bubble-gum pop, Motown Soul, Philly Disco and British Glam Rock sold more, a lot more.
I could make the most exquisite audio amplifier the world has ever seen, and take hundreds of hours crafting each part to make it absolutely perfect in every way, then fine-tune it to produce a sound so transparent and crystal clear it would make the angels weep and then I could spend another few hundred hours hand-tooling a case made from titanium and solid silver with custom made knobs using the rarest hardwoods that only grow on a remote island in the Indian Ocean and use military grade switches that would not look out of place on a million dollar yacht moored in Monte Carlo bay and wire it all up using the purest oxygen free gold wire that can only be made in the zero-gravity environment of the International Space Station. To recoup my costs I would obviously have to charge a kings ransom for it, but even that exorbitant price tag would work to my advantage because the people who would buy it are as impressed by a gold-plated price ticket as they are by workmanship that went into it and the audio clarity that comes out of it. I would probably sell less than a hundred of those in my lifetime but I could never sell thousands because the market for such an audiophile piece of equipment is so small. Yet even though I may never sell very many, the selling price will make me rich.
Alternatively I could take the same circuit design and get it manufactured in China for $20 using cheaper components and a mass-produced case with knobs made from domestic grown wood etc., - it would still look and sound the same and the choir invisible would still be crying rivers of tears whenever they heard it but my audiophile fans would hate it with a passion even though I could prove scientifically that the two amps are identical in every way. However, I could now sell it in Best Buy for less than a hundred bucks each and sell thousands of them, perhaps a million over my lifetime throughout the world so they would still make me rich.
Now the problem with music is that regardless of the amount of hard-work that goes into making it, every CD retails for the same price; regardless of how artistically perfect it is; regardless of the workmanship and talent involved; each and every CD sells for (let's say) $15 no matter who made it or how long it took to produce. This does not fit into the two business plans of the audio amp I've just described because I cannot hike-up the selling price for the album that cost more to make and I cannot charge more for the album with the higher artistic integrity value (whatever that is). What I have to do is sell more of them, a lot more, and to do that I need to promote them so that more people will hear it and therefore buy it... yet I can also do that to the album that was cheaper to produce and I would make even more money. But that still does not explain why manufactured pop records sell more than hand-crafted "art" records because if I sold the two versions of my audio amp at the same retail price the hand-crafted ones would fly off the shelves while the mass-produced ones would sit in the warehouse still in their shipping crates. The difference is very simple - the people who buy music neither know nor care how much hard-work has gone into making it, they don't care about talent (no one has to convince them that an artist has talent, just watch one of those reality make-me-a-star tv programmes to see that) - they only care how it sounds - if they like it they buy it, if they don't they don't. And this is true of the manufactured pop as it is for the hand-crafted "art" music. The bottom line is the people who buy manufactured pop simply don't like hand-crafted "art" music.
Edited by Dean - June 06 2012 at 20:28
|
What?
|
|
TheGazzardian
Prog Reviewer
Joined: August 11 2009
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8667
|
Posted: June 06 2012 at 20:34 |
dtguitarfan wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
It isn't a problem. It's commerce. People want to be entertained, not necessarily "appreciate" anything.
So until you start a record label and make it commercially successful by signing on true talent and making the masses appreciate it, you'll continue to be upset over this.
Or you'll just realize that this is how it is and get over it and enjoy whatever it is you do.
|
Now wait just a minute - you're telling me that there's nothing in your belief system that goes against the "hey, everything's cool"/"anything goes"/"it's all relative, man" attitude? Isn't there something in your personal belief system that says...oh...I dunno...that there are things that are wrong with the world, maybe?
|
I don't know about Rob (though I suspect his answer would be similar to mine), but there are things in the world that bother me and that I think are wrong. And approximately none of them have to do with what other people are listening to for their own enjoyment.
|
|
Ambient Hurricanes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
|
Posted: June 06 2012 at 23:27 |
Dean wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Dean wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Dictionary wrote:
Entertainment: 1. The act of entertaining; agreeable occupation for the mind; diversion; amusement; solving the daily crossword puzzle is an entertainment for many. 2. Something affording pleasure, diversion, or amusement, especially a performance of some kind: the highlight of the ball was an elaborate entertainment. |
You're defining entertainment by it's word roots, not by what it actually means in the English language. These definitions include words and synonyms like "agreeable," "pleasure," "amusement," and "diversion," but not anything about power and lasting effect and unspeakable beauty and the experience of love, joy, and agony through music. Mere entertainment might engage the mind for the moment; it might even stick with you throughout the day if you get songs stuck in your head easily, but it will never change you, and it will never give you a taste of the experience of true beauty that humans really long for. |
Those synonyms are not replacements for "entertain" - you don't go to see an agreeablement, you don't come away having been pleasuremented, the artists on stage are not diversioners - while amusement is partial, not every entertainment will amuse you. The etymology of words is a means of understadning why we can use some words in some contexts and not in others, for examle the dictionary definition of entertain is most certainly "to keep, hold, or maintain in the mind" and "to hold the attention of with something amusing or diverting" and that is the reason why we use "entertainment" for a for an activity that diverts the mind. I think you are understating the lasting power of any "entertainment", belittling them with your own indifference as it were while overstating the life-changing effect of "art".
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Remember, I never said that music meant for entertainment couldn't have artistic value. In fact, I said just the opposite. I know full well that a great deal of classical music was meant for entertainment. I will defend the value of Rush's music till the day that I die, and they see themselves as entertainers. I'd imagine that most prog bands think the same way. I'm not "making distinctions based upon intent;" I'm making distinctions based upon musical value, regardless of intent. I never said anything about our modern analysis of classical music, either; our analysis is not the art, the music itself is. |
I fear you are still making distinctions based on intent ... you are giving a low value to music produced (in your eyes) solely for entertainment ... ie it is the intention of the artist merely to entertain. I am saying that all art is entertainment. This is not something I've just invented for this discussion - I have made this point dozens of times throughout this forum - all music is art, all art is entertainment. You can be as judgemental as you like on the value or worth of some of that art if you wish, but it is your judgement, not a universal truth.
|
I never said that those synonyms replaced the word "entertain;" they explain it. Entertainment is something that holds your attention with amusement or diversion; this definition suggests nothing of any real effect on the mind, any lasting change or any catharsis; it merely implies a pleasant distraction. Does this exclude the possiblility that a piece of music may be entertaining but also truly move the soul and make one experience true beauty and catharsis? No, it does not, but it does not include these in entertainment, either. The dictionary definition of the word "entertainment" implies no lasting value but a momentary diversion. |
I see no statute of limitations within any definition of "entertainment" - I do not believe there is any time duration implicit in entertainment.
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
How can you tell me I'm "still making distinctions based on intent," when I've just given examples of music meant for entertainment that I consider to be great art, also? If you want another example, how about Coldplay? I think that their music is great modern art, some of the most beautiful stuff produced in the 20th century. What do you think they see their music as, other than entertainment? If you're a good artist, you can create good art even if you don't necessarily see your music as something beyond entertainment. I've already given examples, so please do not imply that I'm lying. |
Sorry - did it appear that I was implying you were lying? Please forgive, that was not my intention - I do not beleive that any of the examples you have given intend to produce mere entertainment.
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
I see your point in saying that "all art is entertainment;" I don't deny that something can have a lower purpose (entertainment, the diversion/distraction) as well as a higher purpose (the life-changing power of art), and I think you're right in saying that the higher purpose carries with it the lower purpose. |
I don't see music as having a lower purpose period or a higher one - it's just music.
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
I know that the determination of artistic value is heavily reliant on personal judgement, because no one experiences art in the same way. But I do believe that there is objective value and beauty, and I believe that we can recognize that value even if a piece of art does not profoundly effect us personally. There are no clear dividing lines; no one can objectively say whether Mozart or Beethoven is better, or whether Rush is better than Yes, or anything of that sort, but I do think that we can make distinctions between art that is good, art that is mediocre, and stuff that has so little artistic value that it can barely be considered art at all. |
But you appear to be saying that Mozart is better than Rush - and I don't accept that objective valuation. |
I'm not saying that a piece of entertainment is limited by the definition; as I said before, something can be entertaining - a pleasant amusement and diversion of the mind - while still posessing qualities beyond that, which are often the artisitic qualities that I discussed earlier. I'm saying that the "entertainment" aspect of any piece of music involves only what entertainment itself is. Catharsis, the communication of emotion, etc. are not excluded by the definition of entertainment, but they are not part of entertainment, either. As for the intent distinctions thing; don't worry, we just misunderstood each other. I can give more examples; Coldplay, One Republic, Journey; in the end, neither of us can really know every purpose these musicans have for making music, so it's impossible, in the end, for me to make these distinctions based upon intent. I do believe that the intent of a musician is going to effect his work, but not for a moment do I think that a piece of music becomes something less if the intent was "lesser." If you don't see music as having higher and lower purposes, do you see it as having a real purpose at all? Or is there only one purpose for it, or is the purpose determined by the intent of the artist or the desires of the listener? I can't really respond to that unless I know where you're coming from on the issue. I never said that Mozart was better than Rush. I just picked a pair of classical artists and a pair of prog artists, not intending to elevate one over the other.
|
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
|
|
Ambient Hurricanes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
|
Posted: June 06 2012 at 23:31 |
Dean wrote:
No one has ever had their mind changed by an internet debate |
I did.
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
I understand what you're saying about home recording and trying to work around your weaknesses using technology. I would contend that it takes some of the soul out of the music when much of it is artificial, but I think that in my previous post I forgot to take into account the most important thing (how intelligent of me): the quality of the composition. You're right, in that it's true that you can create some really good music even if much of the performance has been "fixed" as long as the composition is of good quality. |
|
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: June 07 2012 at 01:35 |
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Dean wrote:
No one has ever had their mind changed by an internet debate |
I did.
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
I understand what you're saying about home recording and trying to work around your weaknesses using technology. I would contend that it takes some of the soul out of the music when much of it is artificial, but I think that in my previous post I forgot to take into account the most important thing (how intelligent of me): the quality of the composition. You're right, in that it's true that you can create some really good music even if much of the performance has been "fixed" as long as the composition is of good quality. |
|
If I were to be overly picky about that, I'd say you changed your mind during the debate over a point no one had considered before and were not swayed by what Stonie said in the debate itself.
But hey, I like seeing an exception that proves the rule, it encourages us all to keep chipping away at that damn.
|
What?
|
|