Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
RE: Do the Classics Suppress Contemporary, Creative Works of Music? Literature? Art?
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
 RE: Do the Classics Suppress Contemp... (in reply to estebanana)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: estebanana
I actually don't think a few artists are dominating the recording field, but it depends on how deeply you look.
I agree. I subscribe to a couple of magazines that review classical recordings. Gramophone, published in the UK is the big dog of English language classical magazines. They are tied in tightly to the European scene and the prominent record companies. They get interviews with the famous artists and the up and coming young ones being anointed by the star artists or big record companies.
American Record Guide is put out by a fairly large cadre of reviewers, presided over by a grumpy old editor, who nevertheless gives his contributors their freedom. In its pages you run into a lot of releases put out by what I would call "private labels."
For example the classical guitarist Manuel Barrueco puts out recordings of himself and his students, the Beijing Guitar Duo, on the Tonar label. I suspect Barrueco either has his own studio, or uses one at the Peabody Conservatory in Baltimore where he is on the faculty, or some such arrangement. Recording quality is top notch. Guitars sound pretty much like guitars, not some kind of synthesizer from the planet Tralfamadore, as they do from some of the big companies. Barrueco's wife is the business manager and PR person. Tonar also publishes Barrueco's elegant sheet music editions, but I don't know much about the process.
You can record your own tracks, contract with a mastering engineer, maintain artistic control and send your album to any number of CD foundries. There's a lot of stuff going on like this, resulting in a much greater variety of artists and repertoire available than back in the vinyl days, when LP production was vertically integrated from exclusive artist contracts through the studio, all the way to the pressing plant.
Online sales of these "private labels" are either from the labels themselves, or from fairly comprehensive classical sites like ArkivMusic, HB Direct, etc.
Intermediate between the private labels and the big companies are outfits like Naxos. They record both mainstream and more exotic repertoire, using less expensive but highly competent artists and locally sourced recording teams. I assume they master the stuff themselves, and contract out the CD production. Quality of performance and recording are both excellent. Their classical guitar series is recorded by a well known professional classical guitarist who is also a recording engineer. There are several companies that operate at this scale, many specializing in a their own niches of repertoire.
Spotify, satellite radio, iTunes, Apple Music etc. all have different business models. The net result is wider availability of artists and repertoire, dwindling profits for the "majors" and impoverishment of musicians' pay from recording.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 15 2015 4:16:09
 |
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Do the Classics Suppress Contemp... (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
So is it fair to say that there are quite a few composers and musicians creating and interpreting works today under labels and processes detailed by Stephen and Richard, although they do not make money? That would suggest that the old "Warhorses" (Mozart et. al.) are not suppressing the spirit to create, compose, and make music. That there is, and always has been, a greater motivation that drives the creative spirit forward, and that that spirit is not intimidated by the classics.
Intuitively, I don't see why composers and musicians should be any more suppressed by the classics than are writers and painters. The great classics ("Warhorses" if you will) in literature and art have never stopped young writers and painters from producing their own works, some of which turn into classics themselves. And as far as making money, I'm sure all of us are aware of the starving artist who lived in an unheated Paris garret during the Belle Epoque, and who later achieved fame. And the writer such as Hemingway writing in the Cafe Les Deux Magots trying to find his muse before he became famous. That continues up to the present day. Why would music be any different than literature and art in that respect?
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 15 2015 7:02:18
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Do the Classics Suppress Contemp... (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
For those who maintain that serious music has been suppressed by the classics, either via economics, intimidation, or "aging audiences who lack discrimination," my question still stands. Why would this only be the case in music? Why has it never been the case in the other creative arts, in literature or art? How does your assertion explain this phenomenon as occurring only in the realm of serious music, but not in serious literature or art?
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 15 2015 21:59:11
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Do the Classics Suppress Contemp... (in reply to Miguel de Maria)
|
|
|
quote:
Bill, I don't know why you would assume that current artists are not competing with the classics in other fields.
Miguel, of course current writers and painters are competing with the classics in their respective fields, i.e., literature and art. They also compete against each other, as any glance at a weekly literary "best seller" list can attest to. But, and this is key, they are not being suppressed--via economics, intimidation, or "an aging audience lacking discrimination"--by the classics in their respective fields of endeavor. Writers such as Graham Greene, V.S. Naipaul, Thomas Pynchon, E.L. Doctorow, and others whose works are considered classics were not suppressed and intimidated by the literary greats of the past. Miguel, you keep evading the question--this time you appear to have shifted the operative verb from "suppressed" to "competing." That is a completely different game. My question remains unanswered: How do you explain your assertion that composition and performance of serious music today is suppressed by the classics (i.e., Mozart, et. al.), while that is clearly not the case in other creative endeavors such as literature and art? Why, in your estimation, is music different?
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 16 2015 5:57:15
|
|
estebanana
Posts: 9351
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
|
RE: Do the Classics Suppress Contemp... (in reply to Miguel de Maria)
|
|
|
quote:
On Naxos:
"The remaining viable classical label will be Naxos. Their costs are dramatically lower and their business model allows them to operate profitably in a smaller industry and with much lower sales numbers. A primary contributor to Naxos’ lower costs is the fact that they don’t pay any residuals to the performers. There is no income potential for performers in the Naxos model!"
http://businessofclassicalmusic.blogspot.com/2008/12/classical-music-after-cd.html
What about Arkive Musik and Hyperion? Hyperion seems to support it's artists. Anyway I don't see where this goes. Naxos works on a model that allows new music anew artsists to get recorded an get exposure, but they also don't hold artists in contracts. I very well can work that an artist gets other recording work that does pay residuals based on a Naxos recording as a demo.
Naxos is just one piece in bigger puzzle.
I also just don't get the thing that current composers are competing with Mozart???!!
Really? Just about ever major orchestra in the world, and many smaller chamber ensembles, either has a composer in residence or the orchestra commissions new works by contemporary composers. And they never seem to ask them to rewrite something that sounds like Mozart. I just don't see the squelching of new music by old dead Europeans, as great as they are.
Now orchestras are strapped for money these days and they have to put on the chestnuts to get the pubic that is not as comfortable with new music to come out, but what I see on programs is a mixture of old and new. And not only that, buy many people who like newer more difficult music, *GASP* also like Mozart.
I enjoy a first half of the concert with Mozart and the second half with something more out there. The other thing that is happening as much to day as it ever has is conductor outreach to the audience. One can go on YouTube and watch Leonard Bernstein brilliantly lecture a live audience in 1963 on why Arnold Schoenberg is nothing to be scared of. And you can turn in PBS and see Michael Tilson Thomas give talks to audiences about Copland, Stravinsky, Mahler, Bartok and Boulez.
People, the concert going public respond to these kinds of talks, they aren't stupid. They like Mozart and they like Stravinsky and even listen to more modern music when MTT asks them to keep an open mind and ear.
Orchestras are having trouble with patronage in large part because of politics, not the taste or lack of education of the concert going public. There is not as much grant money today due to conservative politics in State Gov. and Wash DC. Many arts organizations thrived in the past because public support was supplemented by government arts granting.
There was a small opera company next to my old shop in Oakland CA, they had California Arts Council Grant. The produced operas written in English, mostly modern, Britten, but some other opera. I used to hear them rehearse. Then one season they lost the grant money and the venue changed from opera to metal rock. I asked the producer when th eopera was coming back and he said they can't produce opera on a small scale without grant money, so they changed the venue to a rock venue and charged less money per head, but took in four times as many patrons ( barfing on my shop door twice a week.)
The concert going public still wanted Britten, and so did I because opera buffs don't vomit on luthiers door ways like metal heads do. Classical music has always been under patronage whether is is baronial, from the king or from the NEA ( National Endowment for the Arts) And the reason that patronage is withdrawn is because of bozos like Jesse Helms, and the current cadre' of conservative knuckle heads who have forgotten culture is based on history, arts and literature. Not all conservatives are in that boat, most are not, but there are some pretty specious characters in congress today and for the last 30 years who have been undermining government funded arts patronage. A big mistake in my view, for the society culture suffers.
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 16 2015 13:39:03
|
|
estebanana
Posts: 9351
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
|
RE: Do the Classics Suppress Contemp... (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
quote:
Miguel, of course current writers and painters are competing with the classics in their respective fields, i.e., literature and art. They also compete against each other, as any glance at a weekly literary "best seller" list can attest to. But, and this is key, they are not being suppressed--via economics, intimidation, or "an aging audience lacking discrimination"--by the classics in their respective fields of endeavor. Writers such as Graham Greene, V.S. Naipaul, Thomas Pynchon, E.L. Doctorow, and others whose works are considered classics were not suppressed and intimidated by the literary greats of the past. Miguel, you keep evading the question--this time you appear to have shifted the operative verb from "suppressed" to "competing." That is a completely different game. My question remains unanswered: How do you explain your assertion that composition and performance of serious music today is suppressed by the classics (i.e., Mozart, et. al.), while that is clearly not the case in other creative endeavors such as literature and art? Why, in your estimation, is music different?
The painter Richard Diebenkorn said (I paraphrase) I never wanted to be an avant garde artist or an artist that invented a new format, I always knew that I would extend a tradition. And that is what he did, he extended a modernist way of seeing and he took Matisse, Mondrian, Bonnard and many others as his role models, inspiration, and he was challenged by these other, often dead painters, to rise to do his best work.
But he knew his measure, and he knew he was damned good, and he was good enough to take on Matisse who is a formidable artist. And Diebenkorn, possibly more than anything else formally and traditionally, extended Matisse's work. He did not compete with Matisse, and Matisse certainly did not suppress Diebenkorn. Diebenkorn in the realm of his relationship with Matisse's work extended the paint language and way Matisse was seeing and using color.
A similar thing can be said of Stravinsky in relation to Rimsky-Korssikov; Stravinsky extended R-K's language in harmony and orchestration. Then later this happens again with Boulez and Stravinsky, Boulez extends Stravinsky's language in harmony and structure.
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 16 2015 13:55:21
|
|
Miguel de Maria
Posts: 3532
Joined: Oct. 20 2003
From: Phoenix, AZ
|
|
RE: Do the Classics Suppress Contemp... (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
Bill: I don't think I'm getting paid enough here to wrangle over semantics. I've stated my case, as have others. I don't get repetitively asking the same question, each time loaded with a slightly different insinuation. Perhaps it is time for someone to write a skit and put this thread out of its misery. Make sure "aging audiences" are involved prominently--very important.
Stephen: Yeah, sure times have changed. Patronage has been the driving force in classical music, and remains so. Without the universities, I'm not sure how many composers would be left, and we would lose a lot of classical instrumentalists who teach and concertize. There will be the film composers, but I'm not sure their output is really what we're talking about here (even if they do make up half of the "pops" repertoire).
Speaking of "aging audiences", those Bernstein talks (I have them on DVD) were over 50 years ago. Sheesh!
_____________________________
Connect with me on Facebook, all the cool kids are doing it.
https://www.facebook.com/migueldemariaZ
Arizona Wedding Music Guitar
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 16 2015 14:19:29
|
|
estebanana
Posts: 9351
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
|
RE: Do the Classics Suppress Contemp... (in reply to Miguel de Maria)
|
|
|
quote:
Speaking of "aging audiences", those Bernstein talks (I have them on DVD) were over 50 years ago. Sheesh!
They may be 50 years old, but they are still brilliant. And MTT and Marin Alsop...et al continue today.
Composers will continue to compose, painters will keep on painting, violin in players will bow until bed time without without university jobs because the ones who are good did not choose to do it, the work chooses them.
The composers who have the will and the calling the drive ( pun) will keep composing and they will drive taxis at night like Phillip Glass did. Or writers will work at the post office, or dig ditches, or work the library and write at night.
The real artists are the ones who keep going when patronage drops off. They are like threads between the fattier periods. Like bugs, they are roaches, bichos. They never stop. University jobs are just meager cake that a few artists get to eat. The rest of us just do our jobs and keep on writing, carving and brushing, and bowing and doing rasgueado.
I should be teaching in a university, there are not enough positions for all of us. I can take a class of beginners and by the end of the semester have them making beautiful sculpture. Probably a dozen regular Foro members should be teaching art, music or writing at university. None of us will stop doing what we do even though we are not college professors at this time.
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 16 2015 14:35:10
|
|
Miguel de Maria
Posts: 3532
Joined: Oct. 20 2003
From: Phoenix, AZ
|
|
RE: Do the Classics Suppress Contemp... (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
Stephen, we will always continue to create, but economic incentives matter, context shapes and influences what will be made and how much of it. The famous musicians that created these undying works were doing so on commission or through direct patronage. There would probably be very little classical music indeed without universities or the odd habit the rich have of contributing to the approved fine arts. You would not have made dozens or hundreds of high end instruments if no one would or could buy them; on the other side of the coin, I will not make recordings because I don't think anyone will buy them! A friend of mine, on the other hand, has spent surely over $10K on an album that may never be completed and will almost certainly never break even--yes, the need is strong in some. The only composition I do is improvising at my gigs.
Bill, obviously you have your speculation and your opinion on the subject. Feel free to share any evidence or reasoning you consider pertinent. Others have put out their theories and experiences, you have simply repeated your question, interlaced with not-very-subtle attacks, while adding nothing of your own.
_____________________________
Connect with me on Facebook, all the cool kids are doing it.
https://www.facebook.com/migueldemariaZ
Arizona Wedding Music Guitar
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 17 2015 4:07:43
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Do the Classics Suppress Contemp... (in reply to Miguel de Maria)
|
|
|
Miguel, throughout this thread I have detailed my position that modern, serious music coexists comfortably with the classical "Warhorses" such as Mozart. That Mozart et. al. have not suppressed or intimidated modern composers and musicians. And I have compared this coexistence in music with the same phenomenon in literature and art. I listen to modern serious music, as well as the "Warhorses" on NPR all the time. I read Tolstoy and Thomas Pynchon, as well as Hemingway and V.S. Naipal. I like certain modern art as well as the classical masters. The important thing is the classics and modern serious works coexist and are heard, read, and seen in the realms of music, literature and art today.
The only reason I have repeated my question to you is because for some reason you will not, or cannot, answer it. Fair enough. But do not confuse disagreement with "not-very-subtle attacks." There have been no attacks. Noting a change in the operative verb from "suppression" to "compete" is hardly an attack. Neither is it a question of semantics. As I stated earlier, words matter.
Back to the main topic, the following blurb concerns a book entitled "The Rest is Noise: Listening to the Twentieth Century," written by Alex Ross, music critic for the "New Yorker." It strongly suggests that the classics have not suppressed or intimidated composers of modern, serious music. It sounds interesting and may be worth a read.
"Now that we're comfortably settled into the 21st century, critic Alex Ross has taken a look (and a listen) backward, to the classical music spanning the previous 100 years. His new book, The Rest Is Noise: Listening to the Twentieth Century, explores how modern composers forged new techniques, found inspiration in jazz and pop, and forced us to hear music in new ways. Ross makes a case for some of the century's most demanding pieces and visionary composers, from early modernists such as Arnold Schoenberg to revered minimalists such as Steve Reich. From the vast array of music Ross traces in his book, he's chosen a Top 5 list he thinks is essential for anyone curious about modern music."
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 17 2015 5:48:21
|
|
Miguel de Maria
Posts: 3532
Joined: Oct. 20 2003
From: Phoenix, AZ
|
|
RE: Do the Classics Suppress Contemp... (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
You have not "detailed" anything, you have merely stated your opinion. Do you see how I used quotes around the word, detailed, in order to deprecate it? That is the same sort of attack you use when you repetitively enclosed "aging audiences" with quotes.
detail, verb
1. describe item by item; give the full particulars of.
Let me detail my position to the following sub-topics as clearly as I can, since you seem to have missed what I previously wrote by your claim that I am evading them.
1. Some sort of justification that Recuerdos del Alhambra is programmed at every classical guitar concert.
My answer is that I prefer that it not be, that it's boring and I play it every night myself and don't need to hear it anymore. I much prefer the experience of something new and brilliant and alive. If I want to go to the museum, I can put on any of the 20-odd copies of this or the other warhorses, chestnuts, etc. I own on CD. I also prefer not to have to sit through another Beethoven's Fifth except for once in a great while. Is it okay to have this preference, or must I defend it?
2. Whether classical masters suppress modern composers.
We have not even made an attempt to define "suppress". I do not even know that a serious case could be made that includes such a vague word. Why, therefore, argue about it? I merely repeated a pithy phrase ("maybe it should be better that Mozart have never lived") without any expectation that I should have to defend it like a doctoral thesis. Nor do I think using suppress and compete interchangeably in this context is objectionable. The whole context is vague and none of us are using anything more than anecdotes to discuss it. Yes, I agree that the over-programming of 300-year old music dampens any kind of living tradition or the continuance of that tradition. Yes, I strongly feel economic factors affect artistic activity. Are you seriously asking that I prove it?
3. I have no comment on the blurb, as I have not read the book. Perhaps you have read it and can summarize the relevant points for us. The only substantial light that could ever be thrown on this issue would be a specific study, not blurbs and suppositions and notions.
Stephen,
I'm sorry, I missed your response to my question about whether you would continue to build fine instruments--let me add, at your current pace, at your current level of detail and dedication, if there were no market for them. Or, say, the market was cut in half artificially because a massive cache of Monde guitars were suddenly unearthed from a basement in Andalucia and the tastemakers decreed that guitarists must use them in preference to the output of our less-enlightened current luthiers.
I find the analogy apt.
I have noted that you and Bill seem to have a lot of common ground, despite your disparate paths in life.
_____________________________
Connect with me on Facebook, all the cool kids are doing it.
https://www.facebook.com/migueldemariaZ
Arizona Wedding Music Guitar
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 17 2015 15:51:39
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Do the Classics Suppress Contemp... (in reply to runner)
|
|
|
quote:
Bill, have you actually read the book? Just asking. A yes or no answer will suffice.
I would have thought that my statement, "It sounds interesting and may be worth a read," would indicate to the average reader ot the Foro that I have not read it, but that it looked like it might be an interesting read, as it bears on the topic at hand. Runner, apparently you think that the Pacific island-nation of Palau has the equivalent of the Library of Congress. I assure you, it does not. I have access to neither Alex Ross's book nor Leonard Meyer's. And Luddite that I am, I have no interest in reading off the screen of a Nook or other electronic reader. But I have enough of the gist of each to have something to say about them, and enough knowledge and experience in life to have a considered opinion on the topic of classics and modern serious music. You may not agree with my opinion, but that is the nature of discussion and debate.
I'm sure you have strong views and opinions on, say, international relations, foreign affairs, and national security, even though (I assume) you have not been involved professionally and do not regularly read professional journals and many of the books bearing on the subject. But I'm equally sure that you have read enough and have enough life experience to put forth your views, and I would respect those views. I may or may not agree with them, but I would not question your right to hold them. If I disagreed, I would challenge the views themselves, not you personally for holding them, nor would I condescendingly suggest that you have not read enough on the subject.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 17 2015 21:28:06
|
|
estebanana
Posts: 9351
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
|
RE: Do the Classics Suppress Contemp... (in reply to Miguel de Maria)
|
|
|
quote:
Stephen,
I'm sorry, I missed your response to my question about whether you would continue to build fine instruments--let me add, at your current pace, at your current level of detail and dedication, if there were no market for them. Or, say, the market was cut in half artificially because a massive cache of Monde guitars were suddenly unearthed from a basement in Andalucia and the tastemakers decreed that guitarists must use them in preference to the output of our less-enlightened current luthiers.
I find the analogy apt.
I have noted that you and Bill seem to have a lot of common ground, despite your disparate paths in life.
Well, all I can say is that picking guitar making to be a way of making a living is not the most clever thing a guy or gal can do if they want to actually make money. The answer would be yes, I would make guitars even if it were not a money( *cough*) making venture. I would make them for friends to play because that gives me great satisfaction.
I also make paintings, drawing a sculpture when I can, and i can't sell them even though many of my pieces are really high quality. I've tried to sell them, it's not happening so I give them to friends an hope someday I might sell a few just for kicks. I do feel compelled to create art work whether I get paid or not. When I am making art payment is not even a thought on my radar screen.
In the realm of art making I don't need to sell to feel or be validated, I've worked at it for too long and I understand it from within myself and why it must be done. Like my guitar work, my art work is held in high regard by my former teachers and peers. So I have validation from a peer group who have high standards.
Maybe Miguel, just maybe your problem is that you are placing too much emphasis on the money making aspect of creativity? It's important and real, but it seems like you are losing sight of the real goal. Money seems very central to shaping your current discussion on music. Not all composers are placing the emphasis on money that seems to be part of your criteria on whether or not 'The Classics' suppress new work.
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 18 2015 2:49:50
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.109375 secs.
|
Printable Version
