The Great Musician Frank Zappa and His Philosophy.

Share and discuss.

Re: The Great Musician Frank Zappa and His Philosophy.

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:03 am

But this is what I am telling you you prick.
Modern music is NOT the same as Classical.

Most of Zappa's music Is more complex; harder to play; and requiring greater musicianship than the entire Classical Cannon. You are just an ignorant punk kid who pretends to like classical music.


You make a classical mistake of confusing the receiver's end with the creator's end. Just because something requires greater musicianship and is harder to play does not mean it's better to listen to. The same applies to complexity. Just because it is more complex does not mean it is better to listen to. You are an imbecile, Lev, an imbecile who cannot write a post that isn't a knee-jerk reaction.

And punk, by the way, is one of the worst musical genres ever (the other one is reggae.)

Here, let me prove it to you:



And this is miles above Sex Pistols.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3788
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: The Great Musician Frank Zappa and His Philosophy.

Postby Zoot Allures » Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:16 am

Punk rock is part of the tinsel town rebellion, Magnus, a period that began in the early eighties... when music died (in general).
Zoot Allures
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2607
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:50 pm

Re: The Great Musician Frank Zappa and His Philosophy.

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:20 am

Not only that, but you are ignoring the fact that jazz musicians, including the so-called "progressive" rock musicians, are musicians and not composers. The difference between the two is the same as the difference between soldiers and leaders. Musicians are skilled at playing musical instruments, they are not skilled at creating music. As such, they lack organizational/compositional skills, which is why their music tends to be rubbish despite the skill they display. They are vain little fucks, animals without a leader, selecting musical combinations not by what satiates a real, human, biological need, but by what is difficult to play. That's the definition of social decadence, where the absence of a leader results in everyone becoming a "leader".
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3788
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: The Great Musician Frank Zappa and His Philosophy.

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:24 am

Zoot Allures wrote:Punk rock is part of the tinsel town rebellion, Magnus, a period that began in the early eighties... when music died (in general).


Music died long before that.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3788
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: The Great Musician Frank Zappa and His Philosophy.

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:38 am

Zoot Allures wrote:Whynchu gimme a link to some more of that fart-ass bass you posted before? The one with the mad asian chick with the crazy hair on keyboards.


The name is Hiromi Uehara.

User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3788
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: The Great Musician Frank Zappa and His Philosophy.

Postby Zoot Allures » Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:42 am

They are vain little fucks, animals without a leader, selecting musical combinations not by what satiates a real, human, biological need, but by what is difficult to play.


Bullshit. That was some of the best polyrhythmic metal I have heard since Meshuggah. Everybit of that was written and arranged, the musicians very skilled, and the time signatures are ridiculous. Highly technical, Magnus. That's a long shot from something Bob Dylan could pull off.

How fucking ironic. You link me to some excellent music I've never heard before, and I've got to tell you how good it is. You don't understand the definition of composition. You don't have to be an old dude in a wig writing figures for twenty instruments to be played in a palace chamber to be a composer, dude. Composition involves arranging instruments and writing script for those instruments. Those dudes weren't sitting around in a garage one night taking bong hits and fucking with their instruments until they accidentally came up with something. That song developed as an idea.. it was put together, organized, carefully planned. Composed.

That shit was badass, man. You are retarded.
Zoot Allures
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2607
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:50 pm

Re: The Great Musician Frank Zappa and His Philosophy.

Postby Zoot Allures » Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:46 am

Hiromi Uehara.


Yes, that's her. Me love her long time.
Zoot Allures
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2607
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:50 pm

Re: The Great Musician Frank Zappa and His Philosophy.

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:10 am

Zoot Allures wrote:That shit was badass, man. You are retarded.


I can't shit without you eating it and liking it.

You don't understand the definition of composition. You don't have to be an old dude in a wig writing figures for twenty instruments to be played in a palace chamber to be a composer, dude. Composition involves arranging instruments and writing script for those instruments. Those dudes weren't sitting around in a garage one night taking bong hits and fucking with their instruments until they accidentally came up with something. That song developed as an idea.. it was put together, organized, carefully planned. Composed.


You are banalizing what I am saying, which is what allows you to conclude that I don't know what composition is. But it is not me who is unfamiliar with the concept, but you. You are not because you do not understanding the subtle details which separate a genuine composer (and in general, artist) from a pretentious one. Composition isn't just about carefully planning, organizing, arranging, putting everything together in a cohesive whole. This is part of it, but it isn't all of it. And of course, everyone does this. I am not aware of anyone who does not plan/arrange/organize. But what few people do is tune into their own needs -- few have the necessary patience and self-consciousness to know what they really need. Your jazz friends are selective, but their criteria of selection is artificial, it is ridiculous, it is almost completely about what is difficult to play. Of course, there is also this "coolness" criteria, but that's it. None of your jazz and prog friends understand music beyond "it's something that sounds cool". The needs they target, in plain terms, are the artificial ones, the confused ones.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3788
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: The Great Musician Frank Zappa and His Philosophy.

Postby Zoot Allures » Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:47 am

It's pearls before swine, Magnus. Jazz musicians don't try to play what is most difficult.. they play what they are able to play, which happens to be difficult, and then simpletons like you come along and, because they personally dislike the style, call it pretentious garbage.

But there is also a pride and joy in the virtuoso. Sometimes he wants to attempt the most difficult things on his instrument for the purposes of expanding his power over it. Take a bassist like Jaco Pastorius. Total showboat.. one arrogant sonofabitch. In fact, he got beat to death by a bouncer at a club after jumping up on the stage and taking the bass from the bassist in the band that was playing there (so the story goes). But was Jaco pretentious if he was that good? Nobody during that time could play like Jaco, and this was known throughout the entire jazz fusion community. Should he not be that good so people like you don't mistake him for trying to play what is extremely difficult to play on a bass guitar? But he could play that way, it came naturally to him. He's not trying to be difficult; he's being himself, somebody who's style of playing happens to be extremely difficult.
Zoot Allures
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2607
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:50 pm

Re: The Great Musician Frank Zappa and His Philosophy.

Postby Zoot Allures » Wed Aug 26, 2015 2:09 am

But what few people do is tune into their own needs -- few have the necessary patience and self-consciousness to know what they really need.


How the fuck do you know what a musician needs? So anybody who plays an instrument needs to check with you first to make sure they are in tune with themselves?

You know what all this is? All this is rooted in this hedonism fetish you've been engrossed in for the past several months. Anytime you find something you don't like about somebody, they're a hedonist in some form or fashion. A guitarist who plays machine gun leads on his guitar is a hedonist, because you don't like it (jealous?).

None of your jazz and prog friends understand music beyond "it's something that sounds cool".


Really? Does this sound cool? This piece was composed by a jazz fusion band to be played with an orchestra. Is this music genuine, heartfelt and sincere.. even beautiful? Nah.. these guys just like to pose with their instruments, look cool, and play difficult things.
Zoot Allures
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2607
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:50 pm

Re: The Great Musician Frank Zappa and His Philosophy.

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Aug 26, 2015 4:04 am

Zoot Allures wrote:It's pearls before swine, Magnus. Jazz musicians don't try to play what is most difficult.. they play what they are able to play, which happens to be difficult, and then simpletons like you come along and, because they personally dislike the style, call it pretentious garbage.


Yes, they choose to play what is interesting for them to play, which tends to be what is difficult because they are virtuosi. In fact, it does not even matter whether they choose to play what is difficult or what is easy or what is simply on their level. The main point I am making is that they choose their musical combinations in a way which is radically different from the way natural artists do. Nietzsche spoke against Wagner for the same reason.

Take a bassist like Jaco Pastorius. Total showboat.. one arrogant sonofabitch. In fact, he got beat to death by a bouncer at a club after jumping up on the stage and taking the bass from the bassist in the band that was playing there (so the story goes). But was Jaco pretentious if he was that good? Nobody during that time could play like Jaco, and this was known throughout the entire jazz fusion community. Should he not be that good so people like you don't mistake him for trying to play what is extremely difficult to play on a bass guitar? But he could play that way, it came naturally to him. He's not trying to be difficult; he's being himself, somebody who's style of playing happens to be extremely difficult.


Jaco is a bassist who played his bass like it was a lead instrument. That can be helpful in honing one's skills, but can that help one make good music? No, it leads to bad music, because noone wants to listen to bass music. And he was musically illiterate.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3788
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: The Great Musician Frank Zappa and His Philosophy.

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Aug 26, 2015 4:31 am

Zoot Allures wrote:How the fuck do you know what a musician needs? So anybody who plays an instrument needs to check with you first to make sure they are in tune with themselves?

You know what all this is? All this is rooted in this hedonism fetish you've been engrossed in for the past several months. Anytime you find something you don't like about somebody, they're a hedonist in some form or fashion. A guitarist who plays machine gun leads on his guitar is a hedonist, because you don't like it (jealous?).


I've been engrossed in this "hedonism fetish" for years. I am not saying anything I haven't already said several years ago. Even the music I post here is exactly the same music I used to cite as an example of decadence in the past (Hiromi, Animals as Leaders, H2O, Aphex Twin, etc.) Not jealousy, my friend, but reality. I am simply being real and you are simply being Zoot Allures.

You are too attached to Zappa, too much in love with him to be able to see him for what he really is. Step back, open your eyes and PREPARE TO DIE.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3788
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: The Great Musician Frank Zappa and His Philosophy.

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Aug 26, 2015 4:35 am

Take your Mahavishnu Orchestra and compare it to Sir Johan Strauss II:



Then repeat what you said above about M.O.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3788
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: The Great Musician Frank Zappa and His Philosophy.

Postby Zoot Allures » Wed Aug 26, 2015 11:55 am

Everything that is mind numbing, boring and dull about bourgeois culture is perfectly captured in that song. The only thing I could think about while listening to it was which is worse; those pork chops on the sides of his face, or that corset you're wearing.

You need something with some balls man.

Zoot Allures
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2607
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:50 pm

Re: The Great Musician Frank Zappa and His Philosophy.

Postby Lev Muishkin » Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:59 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Take your Mahavishnu Orchestra and compare it to Sir Johan Strauss II:

**Blue Danube**

Then repeat what you said above about M.O.


AH! POP MUSIC??

Odd, of all the Classical Music you could have chosen you pick one of the most simple overplayed and easy-on-the-ear bit of popularist fluff.

"Science is entirely Faith Based.... Obama is Muslim....Evil is the opposition to life (e-v-i-l <=> l-i-v-e ... and not by accident). Without evil there could be no life.", James S. Saint.
"The Holocaust was the fault of the Jews; The Holocaust was not genocide", Kriswest
"A Tortoise is a Turtle", Wizard
" Hitler didn't create the Nazis. In reality, the Judists did ... for a purpose of their own. Hitler was merely one they chose to head it up after they discovered the Judist betrayal in WW1, their "Judas Iscariot";James S Saint.
These just keep getting funnier.
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:58 am

Re: The Great Musician Frank Zappa and His Philosophy.

Postby Lev Muishkin » Wed Aug 26, 2015 7:01 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:You make a classical mistake of confusing the receiver's end with the creator's end. Just because something requires greater musicianship and is harder to play does not mean it's better to listen to.


I like something challenging. Easy listening get boring and dull.

"Science is entirely Faith Based.... Obama is Muslim....Evil is the opposition to life (e-v-i-l <=> l-i-v-e ... and not by accident). Without evil there could be no life.", James S. Saint.
"The Holocaust was the fault of the Jews; The Holocaust was not genocide", Kriswest
"A Tortoise is a Turtle", Wizard
" Hitler didn't create the Nazis. In reality, the Judists did ... for a purpose of their own. Hitler was merely one they chose to head it up after they discovered the Judist betrayal in WW1, their "Judas Iscariot";James S Saint.
These just keep getting funnier.
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:58 am

Re: The Great Musician Frank Zappa and His Philosophy.

Postby Lev Muishkin » Wed Aug 26, 2015 7:05 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Not only that, but you are ignoring the fact that jazz musicians, including the so-called "progressive" rock musicians, are musicians and not composers..


You are just showing your ignorance. It's shocking. What planet do you live on?

Check out how the rhythms and refrains play against each other. Try to listen with an open mind,


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJ0YIfW2BUI

All the best composers were players too. But all Progresive Rock musicians of any stamp were all player/composers. WHERE THE HELL DO YOU THINK the music came from???

"Science is entirely Faith Based.... Obama is Muslim....Evil is the opposition to life (e-v-i-l <=> l-i-v-e ... and not by accident). Without evil there could be no life.", James S. Saint.
"The Holocaust was the fault of the Jews; The Holocaust was not genocide", Kriswest
"A Tortoise is a Turtle", Wizard
" Hitler didn't create the Nazis. In reality, the Judists did ... for a purpose of their own. Hitler was merely one they chose to head it up after they discovered the Judist betrayal in WW1, their "Judas Iscariot";James S Saint.
These just keep getting funnier.
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:58 am

Re: The Great Musician Frank Zappa and His Philosophy.

Postby Zoot Allures » Wed Aug 26, 2015 11:21 pm

It's not the music Magnus has a problem with, it's the modern instruments. If you took [insert prog rock song] and arranged it to be played by woodwinds, brass, violins, cellos, nylon string classical guitar and some kettle drums, he'd feel sophisticated and anti-hedonistic while listening to it and eating his fish 'n chips.

Now take that gay ass waltz and arrange it for electric instruments and a trap set and he'd hate it. Why? Because Magnus is a hedonist. He exhibits no self control over his infatuation with classical music. The fact is, he's just jealous because he can't shred.
Zoot Allures
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2607
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:50 pm

Re: The Great Musician Frank Zappa and His Philosophy.

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:08 am

Lev Muishkin wrote:AH! POP MUSIC??

Odd, of all the Classical Music you could have chosen you pick one of the most simple overplayed and easy-on-the-ear bit of popularist fluff.


You make several mistakes.

First, just because something is popular does not mean it is bad. Similarly, just because something is rare (e.g. a bunch of black dudes jamming in a bar) does not mean it is good. You are confused on this one. When attacking music you should always attack it based on its constitutive elements, on what is within it, not based on what is outside of it and certainly not based on a symptom.

Second, just because something is simple does not mean it is bad. Similarly, just because something is complex does not mean it is good. You need to forget about linearity. Ordered simplicity is superior to disordered complexity.

Third, though "Blue Danube" is one of the most popular and one of the simplest classical pieces, it is certainly not a pop song, in a sense that there is a great distinction between it and 20th century pop music, including contemporary classical music, neoclassical, minimal and the similar (e.g. Ludovico Einaudi and Philip Glass.)

Fourth, the best way to demonstrate the superiority of a genre over another one is to pick one of its weaker representatives. "Blue Danube", whether you like to admit it or not, is above anything Mahavishnu Orchestra ever did (even Jan Hammer's casualesque ambient music, call it elevator music if you will, is more engrossing.)

You are an imbecile, Lev. You should just stick to your jammers and forget about discussions.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3788
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: The Great Musician Frank Zappa and His Philosophy.

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:15 am

Lev Muishkin wrote:I like something challenging. Easy listening get boring and dull.


There is very little challenge ( = unpredictability) in jazz music. It's mostly an initial, temporary, phenomenon. There is more unpredictability in IDM than there is in jazz.

Take this for example:

User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3788
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: The Great Musician Frank Zappa and His Philosophy.

Postby Zoot Allures » Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:24 am

Is there anything good inside of you, Andy?
Zoot Allures
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2607
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:50 pm

Re: The Great Musician Frank Zappa and His Philosophy.

Postby Lev Muishkin » Thu Aug 27, 2015 11:34 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:
Lev Muishkin wrote:AH! POP MUSIC??

Odd, of all the Classical Music you could have chosen you pick one of the most simple overplayed and easy-on-the-ear bit of popularist fluff.


You make several mistakes.

First, just because something is popular does not mean it is bad. Similarly, just because something is rare (e.g. a bunch of black dudes jamming in a bar) does not mean it is good. You are confused on this one. When attacking music you should always attack it based on its constitutive elements, on what is within it, not based on what is outside of it and certainly not based on a symptom.

Second, just because something is simple does not mean it is bad. Similarly, just because something is complex does not mean it is good. You need to forget about linearity. Ordered simplicity is superior to disordered complexity.

Third, though "Blue Danube" is one of the most popular and one of the simplest classical pieces, it is certainly not a pop song, in a sense that there is a great distinction between it and 20th century pop music, including contemporary classical music, neoclassical, minimal and the similar (e.g. Ludovico Einaudi and Philip Glass.)

Fourth, the best way to demonstrate the superiority of a genre over another one is to pick one of its weaker representatives. "Blue Danube", whether you like to admit it or not, is above anything Mahavishnu Orchestra ever did (even Jan Hammer's casualesque ambient music, call it elevator music if you will, is more engrossing.)

You are an imbecile, Lev. You should just stick to your jammers and forget about discussions.


You made several mistakes.

point 1. Mostly it is true that stuff accessible to all, is usually pretty bad, not always, but then I did not say it was.
point 2 I never said simple was bad; I said I prefer something challenging, as Simple gets boring quickly.
point 3 Actually Strauss is widely regarded as the birth of POP.
Point 4 - this is what you are doing, not me.

And BTW. What kind of a moron thinks that prog rock musicians are not also composers. Dim fuck

"Science is entirely Faith Based.... Obama is Muslim....Evil is the opposition to life (e-v-i-l <=> l-i-v-e ... and not by accident). Without evil there could be no life.", James S. Saint.
"The Holocaust was the fault of the Jews; The Holocaust was not genocide", Kriswest
"A Tortoise is a Turtle", Wizard
" Hitler didn't create the Nazis. In reality, the Judists did ... for a purpose of their own. Hitler was merely one they chose to head it up after they discovered the Judist betrayal in WW1, their "Judas Iscariot";James S Saint.
These just keep getting funnier.
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:58 am

Re: The Great Musician Frank Zappa and His Philosophy.

Postby Zoot Allures » Thu Aug 27, 2015 11:53 am

That aphex twin is trash.. it's not even music. Somebody mixed a bunch of tracks on some computer software and then called it a song. This generally characterizes what happened to music in the early eighties. The advent of these new recording technologies. Now anybody can be a 'musician'. Then you've got the explosion in the music industry.. easily accessible means to produce and distribute music in the free market. Anybody can step into a producer's office with a demo tape and cut a record deal. Finally, the consumer public, being musically illiterate, will by anything that is marketed. Now every fifteen minutes some new group appears selling the same crap.. only it's a little different this time. There's a rapper involved, so it's not just house music rave techno whatever whatever, it's house music rave techno hip-hop. Thirty minutes later something else comes on the radio and is popular for a week. This time there's some distorted guitar. So we have house music rave techno hip-hop metal.

Your animosity toward this kind of modern music is warranted, Magnus, but you have no comprehension of jazz (contemporary or fusion) or progressive rock. It is precisely the unpredictability of these genres that is one of the most important elements. Breaking from conventional forms and patterns in song writing. Structuring songs differently, composing songs with many separate parts instead or using the mundane melody/chorus format used all the time in mainstream, commercial music.

By the way, Hammer played with Mahavishnu Orchestra on several albums. Don't know if you knew that, but I found it ironic nonetheless.

Watch Billy on the skins. This dude is a better drummer with one hand than any drummer you'll ever find on the radio or in an orchestra pit.
Zoot Allures
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2607
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:50 pm

Re: The Great Musician Frank Zappa and His Philosophy.

Postby Zoot Allures » Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:26 pm

Arminius:

Is, for example, the title of Zappa's first LP - "Freak Out" - already a philosophical statement or just similar to some statements here on "ILP"?

Contains, for example, the title of Zappa's second LP - "Absolutely Free" - an ontology of the will, thus a metaphysical and thus a philosophical statement?


Freak Out and Absolutely Free were parodies of the sixties psychedelic hippy rock scene, but also a shot at the record industries and the values that were prevalent over the music of that period. Frank was against censorship of any kind.. though not for the reasons we might suppose. His attitude during the early Mother's Of Invention period was two sided; he didn't want to enter the rock scene (because it was silly and below him), but he had to, to make some money. Nobody was paying composers back then. Pop music and rock was where it was at. So what does he do? He enters the mainstream scene with a card up his sleeve. He will write music of the appropriate genre better than the rest, but at the same time make a mockery of it. A statement is made to the music consumers, music genre, music industry and the dominant values of the time with this one gesture: this is what you are, hippies.. this is how simple your music is.. this is how cheap your industry is.. and this is how lame your values are. He didn't want to censor these trends.. he wanted to indulge them, set them loose, let them play out naturally. He used all this as material to work with in order to show people what they were. He was the master parodist.

Is, for example, the title of Zappa's third LP - "We're Only in It for the Money" - a philosophical statement or just similar to some statements here on "ILP"?


This one was a shot at the bands of that era. You see the parody of The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper album cover there. It was also a kind of tongue and cheek admittance to his being in the rock music industry for all the wrong reasons. Because this industry was a joke, he felt, he was only in it for the money.

Zappa also said for example: „You are what you is“. That is lingustically false but peotically allowed. My question: Is it also philosophically false?


You Are What You Is can be understood independently, but also understood within the context of Thing Fish, the concept rock-opera album of which it was a part. Independently is can be seen as a social critique of consumerism and consumer identities. As part of Thing Fish it is specifically for the purposes of criticizing American negro culture. Note the incorrect grammar; you are what you is.
Zoot Allures
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2607
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:50 pm

Re: The Great Musician Frank Zappa and His Philosophy.

Postby Zoot Allures » Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:34 pm

Scapegoating. Whatever goes wrong on the shop-floor, we blame the robots


But then we'd piss the robot off, and Tink would walk amok.

Image
Zoot Allures
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2607
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:50 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Art, Music, and Entertainment



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot]