| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Slartibartfast 
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29625
|
 Posted: July 22 2008 at 04:43 |
 Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
|
Well, explain this to me, what the hell exactly is Peter doing here? Beyond the obvious, of course. A tip of the hat to surrealism? I see the scale Statue of Liberty shows up in proportion to the real one in the background.
Edited by Slartibartfast - July 22 2008 at 04:46
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
 |
Hootywho
Forum Groupie
Joined: May 23 2008
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 50
|
Posted: July 22 2008 at 04:53 |
Slartibartfast wrote:
Well, explain this to me, what the hell exactly is Peter doing here? Beyond the obvious, of course.
A tip of the hat to surrealism? I see the scale Statue of Liberty shows up in proportion to the real one in the background.
|
Every time I see a picture of Peter Gabriel I think to myself "MAN!,
this guy is wierd" but then I think "Who cares?, It's Peter Gabriel"
and then it moves onto "THIS is what prog is about" and then it moves to "how could something as bad as punk rock kill something as good as this?", finally concluded by "god, punk sucks, peoples taste in music disgusts me".
|
|
|
|
fusionfreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 23 2007
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 1317
|
Posted: July 22 2008 at 06:15 |
I must admit that Punk killed prog is quite a myth.It would be more fitting to say that prog was "bankable"
from 1970 to 1973 nothing more(the famous Vertigo label had little means).After major companies left prog music and it's true that some musicians gave credit to it releasing self indulgent records(Tangerine Dream's Phaedra or Amon Duul 2's Made in Germany) and all of you remember or know that Pink Floyd and Yes began making mainstream stuff by the end of the seventies to get larger audiences(such a crime).But I can give various examples of rock critics far from being earnest regarding prog:Yves Adrien was a big Magma fan(former Rock'n Folk journalist)in the beginning of the seventies,praising them anytime but when punk came to the fore he began to blow their music away,saying it was sh*t.I also remembered Robert Fripp saying in an interview(summer 2000) that from 1975 to 1992 NME men didn't care about KC music.As I often say,some rock critics are bad musicians who like fame too much but Prog is not dead(and must stay smart,complex and smashing)!
|
|
I was born in the land of Mahavishnu,not so far from Kobaia.I'm looking for the world
of searchers with the help from
crimson king
|
|
russellk
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 28 2005
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 782
|
Posted: July 22 2008 at 06:28 |
The T wrote:
Damn I still don't get why some people are devoting 30923 pages to basically say "we like punk and prog is dead".... |
Teo, I don't think that's what people are saying. They are speculating on the degree to which punk harmed prog. I'm not ashamed to say I enjoy various manifestations of punk rock, but I'm a progger at heart. Just because I defended punk's continued existence doesn't mean I think prog is dead! To summarise the thread's beginning, before it degenerated into yet another 'he said, she said': Frasse said that 'punk killed prog' was a myth. Fusionfreak and RaphaelT agreed. Walker said punk killed prog in his part of the USA. Tszirmay agreed that the press savagely decimated prog. Your Lame Sister blamed 'crap' prog albums for its demise. Cacho and Hootywho disagreed. Luke J. said punk displaced prog. Ivan said in Peru 'we almost never noticed it,' and that 'Punk doesn't exist anymore'. A B Negative, Atavachron, Mithrandir, Micky, Russellk, James, Peskypesky and Stonebeard disagreed. Peskypesky said punk gave prog a knockout punch. Atavachron said punk didn't really kill prog, but the hype punk received didn't help. Micky told us that prog never really died. Hercules said punk nearly killed prog. Kibble_Alex said prog never had a downfall. The T questioned why we love to talk about how punk killed prog. Atkingani said punk was never great in Brazil. Spookytooth said no. James said punk put prog on hiatus. He provided many examples of how punk is alive today. Treasure provided an example of how prog and punk were fused. Dxz agreed. Slartibartfast provided another. Mithrandir said prog and punk aren't dead, nor should they be seen as enemies. Garion81 said that no other music killed prog, instead blaming record companies for starving the genre of new blood. Henry Plainview said it's a persecution complex. I don't see any evidence of anyone saying 'we like punk and prog is dead'. And as for commercial success, I'm afraid punk-related bands like Green Day, Good Charlotte and Yellowcard are far more successful than anything prog-related. Prog is alive, punk is alive. What's the problem? There's no need for anyone to be defensive about this.
Edited by russellk - July 22 2008 at 06:31
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46828
|
Posted: July 22 2008 at 06:34 |
 I love these threads.... they are what makes PA's... PA's... take an incorrect and inane notion to start add in a bunch of pointless arguing with faulty and incorrect logic and lack of knowledge on the subject.. top it with having the well written and logical posts ignored hahahah. serve it on a plate.. and there you have it... a PA's house specialty... 5 page thread... that should have never made past a few posts by a couple of posters here.
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
peskypesky
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 25 2005
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 359
|
Posted: July 22 2008 at 11:42 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
peskypesky wrote:
If fashion wasn't important in prog, please explain the images in our signatures. I really doubt that Genesis & Yes just found those clothing items at Sears. |
Now you are lost again, the fact that for example PETER GABRIEL used COSTUMES in Genesis, doesn't make it afashion, or did you ever saw somebody dressing as a flower in the streets?
Genesis and Yes used those COSTUMES for PERFORMING.
The clothing that used Yes was mostly a costume also, those capes of Chris Squire or Rick Wakeman, were not very popular in the streets, now Steve Howe and Jon Anderson dressed as Hippies, not as Proggers, if you don't know the difference between a costume and a fashion, well.....
And yes, probably Genesis members found their clothes in Sears:
As you see, they are regular guys dressing as any regular young man would had dressed in those days, except Peter who is using a COSTUME!
If you don't get it yet, I'll make it easy:
This is a costume.
While:
And this:
IS PUNK FASHION!!
Now you got it?
It's easy if you try.
Iván
|
Your reply is a perfect example of: 1. Dodging the question. 2. Comparing apples & oranges 3. Not seeing the forest for the trees. 1. You failed to explain why Yes, Genesis, Jethro Tull and other prog bands wore these outfits if they were not important in some way. The clothing did not just appear on their bodies. They invested time and money into these outfits (or "costumes"), and yet you argue that they were not important. 2. You are comparing performers with fans, thinking you are proving your point, when you really are just underscoring one of the main differences between prog and punk: that to be a rock performer, you did not need to wear some ridiculous outfit on stage, you could wear the same clothes that you wore on the street. This is a VERY important point, which you fail to grasp. It's not that fashion was important to punk and not to prog. Fashion & style were an important part of both prog and punk. The difference was that the barrier between fan and performer was erased. It was a democratization of style and fashion. It's kind of like going from a system of nobility to a republic. Before punk, the "high style" of prog was worn by the nobles (the performers). With punk, the style was worn by everyone. As a matter of fact, I am dressed very much like a Ramone right now, sitting here in my office in NYC. I'm wearing a black t-shirt, jeans and Converse sneakers. Not a cape and tights. And there are many more people here in this office dressed similar to me. We could strap on guitars and go play at a club right now. We don't need to "dress up" or wear "costumes". That was one of the points of punk. If you can't grasp that, well....you can't see the forest for the trees.
|
|
Prog fan since 1974.
|
|
peskypesky
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 25 2005
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 359
|
Posted: July 22 2008 at 12:06 |
russellk wrote:
The T wrote:
Damn I still don't get why some people are devoting 30923 pages to basically say "we like punk and prog is dead".... |
Teo, I don't think that's what people are saying. They are speculating on the degree to which punk harmed prog. I'm not ashamed to say I enjoy various manifestations of punk rock, but I'm a progger at heart. Just because I defended punk's continued existence doesn't mean I think prog is dead! To summarise the thread's beginning, before it degenerated into yet another 'he said, she said':Frasse said that 'punk killed prog' was a myth. Fusionfreak and RaphaelT agreed.Walker said punk killed prog in his part of the USA. Tszirmay agreed that the press savagely decimated prog.Your Lame Sister blamed 'crap' prog albums for its demise. Cacho and Hootywho disagreed.Luke J. said punk displaced prog.Ivan said in Peru 'we almost never noticed it,' and that 'Punk doesn't exist anymore'. A B Negative, Atavachron, Mithrandir, Micky, Russellk, James, Peskypesky and Stonebeard disagreed.Peskypesky said punk gave prog a knockout punch.Atavachron said punk didn't really kill prog, but the hype punk received didn't help.Micky told us that prog never really died.Hercules said punk nearly killed prog.Kibble_Alex said prog never had a downfall.The T questioned why we love to talk about how punk killed prog.Atkingani said punk was never great in Brazil.Spookytooth said no.James said punk put prog on hiatus. He provided many examples of how punk is alive today.Treasure provided an example of how prog and punk were fused. Dxz agreed. Slartibartfast provided another.Mithrandir said prog and punk aren't dead, nor should they be seen as enemies.Garion81 said that no other music killed prog, instead blaming record companies for starving the genre of new blood.Henry Plainview said it's a persecution complex.I don't see any evidence of anyone saying 'we like punk and prog is dead'.And as for commercial success, I'm afraid punk-related bands like Green Day, Good Charlotte and Yellowcard are far more successful than anything prog-related.Prog is alive, punk is alive. What's the problem? There's no need for anyone to be defensive about this. |
ROTFLMAO!! I love your synopsis. Very very funny. And I absolutely agree with you on many of your points. 1. The recent success of bands like Green Day, Good Charlotte, Blink 182, AFI, etc etc etc, proves that punk music is not "underground" by any means. Now, as a fan of old-school punk like the Clash, Sex Pistols, Ramones, Buzzcocks, etc, I don't particularly care for these newer bands, but they're clearly modelled on those earlier bands. 2. The continued money-making tours of bands like Genesis and Yes prove that prog fans are still alive, and the neo-prog bands prove that there are still prog artists. So prog (the fans and the artists) was not literally "killed" by punk. It was a metaphor. What a lot of us were saying was that the advent of punk and new wave dealt a serious blow to prog and sent it reeling. Many of us believe it's never fully recovered, even to this day.
|
|
Prog fan since 1974.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: July 22 2008 at 14:25 |
peskypesky wrote:
Your reply is a perfect example of:
1. Dodging the question.
2. Comparing apples & oranges
3. Not seeing the forest for the trees.
1. You failed to explain why Yes, Genesis, Jethro Tull and other prog bands wore these outfits if they were not important in some way. The clothing did not just appear on their bodies. They invested time and money into these outfits (or "costumes"), and yet you argue that they were not important.
2. You are comparing performers with fans, thinking you are proving your point, when you really are just underscoring one of the main differences between prog and punk: that to be a rock performer, you did not need to wear some ridiculous outfit on stage, you could wear the same clothes that you wore on the street. This is a VERY important point, which you fail to grasp. It's not that fashion was important to punk and not to prog. Fashion & style were an important part of both prog and punk. The difference was that the barrier between fan and performer was erased. It was a democratization of style and fashion. It's kind of like going from a system of nobility to a republic. Before punk, the "high style" of prog was worn by the nobles (the performers). With punk, the style was worn by everyone.
As a matter of fact, I am dressed very much like a Ramone right now, sitting here in my office in NYC. I'm wearing a black t-shirt, jeans and Converse sneakers. Not a cape and tights. And there are many more people here in this office dressed similar to me. We could strap on guitars and go play at a club right now. We don't need to "dress up" or wear "costumes". That was one of the points of punk.
If you can't grasp that, well....you can't see the forest for the trees. |
Had a long reply, but deleted it, it0's not worth, you're changing totally the subject, but who cares:
1.- You said there was a Prog fashion: I proved you were wrong, not even the musicians, some of them used COSTUMES like Peter Gabriel (Only after September 28, 1972, because he dressed as in the street before, and created the Fox in red dress costume as publicity), maybe Yes, Jethrro Tull etc, but many other bands like Pink Floyd, Kansas, King Crimson, VDGG, Triumvirat, Banco, etc dressed as anybody else, they didn't required nothing special.
2.- The fact that in Punk, the philosophy and fashion was as important as the music is undeniable, there was a Punk philosophy, a Punk fashion (Yes, fashion is what people use in the street, what people use on stage is PERFORMING CLOTHES, like a clown in a circus doesn't creat a fashion of a red nose).
The rest of your arguments are simply trying to distract things from the point Stonebeard and myself were talking, you have evaded the point, so in my case I will end it here.
BTW: I can't see the tree because you're creating a forest to hide how you changed subjects.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 22 2008 at 14:27
|
|
|
|
Mousoleum
Forum Groupie
Joined: January 16 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 68
|
Posted: July 23 2008 at 05:10 |
|
Computers. New Wave, and the smarter Prog bands going with it; i.e. Peter Gabriel, Rush, and a handful of others.
|
|
crimson87
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 03 2008
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 1818
|
Posted: July 23 2008 at 18:55 |
Thank's Ivan for the punk site , that was so funny.I mean those "Sets of boredom" I have every single album!!!
|
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
|
Posted: July 23 2008 at 22:09 |
|
O.K. how about this
Punk didn't kill prog. Prog had hit a peak, and was becoming a niche genre, with exceptions like Pink Floyd, Rush, Genesis, Yes, Supertramp, Kansas and Tull. Europeen proggers still kept putting out albums. But the commercial heyday was past as of 1976. Punk jumped on the front pages of the rock media because it was new. It presented something very different from much of what was out there - prog, metal, southern rock, singer-songwriter, country rock. You name it, it was just different. Punk did not however, "kill" any genre or sub-genre. It simply came to occupy its' own space in the musical spectrum.
Indeed, before the 70s were over, new wave had replaced punk as the "cool" music of youth. Soon thereafter, hard rock /heavy metal would enjoy another resurgence (AC/DC, Dio's Sabbath, NWOBHM), the Romantic scene would come about (Duran Duran et al), synth pop,Neo Prog, the American metal and then sleaze / hair metal scene, the 80s dance pop and other sugary music configurations (New Kids on the BLock). Then finally, at the end of the 80s brought about another wave of metal, that morphed into grunge that killed hair metal, brought about pop punk, then boy bands, more prog groups emerging from coutnries outside of the UK, US, Europe, p'o'd chick singers (Alanis) , along with the Spice Girls and then the teen & tween scene.
SO prog is still alive. SO it couldn't have been killed. Punk finally broke in the states when Nirvana hit platinum. Metal keeps re-inventing itself with traditional forms morphing into more extreme versions. Prog has done so in its' own way (Neo, Retro, basically the stew comprised of all that has come before). Most lasting genres have done the same (country with alt-country or No Depression, contemporary country; punk with pop punk to the various *****core sub-genres; even disco with trance/jungle/dance/bass & drum).
So if there remains any recorded material of a musical style (say sousa military marches) that someone out there is still listening too, the music is still alive.
So, ipso fact, prog is still alive. And never died. Ditto for Disco ... unfortunately ... but that's just for me. SOme enjoy it.
As
|
|
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
|
jammun
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449
|
Posted: July 23 2008 at 23:00 |
Well we've nearly beaten the topic to death here, but my 2 cents:
Classic prog collapsed under its own weight. As one who was a prog consumer at the time, I can say that following the Works stuff I quit buying ELP. Following Tales, I quit buying Yes. Following Passion Play, I quit buying JT. You get the idea. I did still indulge in Crimson and Pink Floyd, but mostly I was listening to fusion during this era. Fusion led me to traditional jazz. I did not buy any Kansas, Styx, Toto, etc. albums. I considered that AOR fodder. I did buy the odd Fleetwood Mac or Eagles album at the time -- hardly prog bands. The band that brought me back to listening to anything rock-related was The Clash. London Calling was to my ears pretty proggy in terms of their willingness to incorporate all that had come before. So from the point of view of your average consumer at the time -- and make no mistake we're talking about consumerism here -- punk actually brought me back into the fold.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: July 24 2008 at 00:10 |
crimson87 wrote:
Thank's Ivan for the punk site , that was so funny.I mean those "Sets of boredom" I have every single album!!! |
It's priceless. 
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 24 2008 at 00:10
|
|
|
|
peskypesky
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 25 2005
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 359
|
Posted: July 24 2008 at 11:14 |
jammun wrote:
Well we've nearly beaten the topic to death here, but my 2 cents:
Classic prog collapsed under its own weight. As one who was a prog consumer at the time, I can say that following the Works stuff I quit buying ELP. Following Tales, I quit buying Yes. Following Passion Play, I quit buying JT. You get the idea. I did still indulge in Crimson and Pink Floyd, but mostly I was listening to fusion during this era. Fusion led me to traditional jazz. I did not buy any Kansas, Styx, Toto, etc. albums. I considered that AOR fodder. I did buy the odd Fleetwood Mac or Eagles album at the time -- hardly prog bands. The band that brought me back to listening to anything rock-related was The Clash. London Calling was to my ears pretty proggy in terms of their willingness to incorporate all that had come before. So from the point of view of your average consumer at the time -- and make no mistake we're talking about consumerism here -- punk actually brought me back into the fold. |
So the Clash saved the rock'n'roul soul of an old progger? :) Sweet. And yeah, that "London Calling" album is amazing, ain't it?
|
|
Prog fan since 1974.
|
|
jammun
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449
|
Posted: July 24 2008 at 11:42 |
peskypesky wrote:
jammun wrote:
Well we've nearly beaten the topic to death here, but my 2 cents:
Classic prog collapsed under its own weight. As one who was a prog consumer at the time, I can say that following the Works stuff I quit buying ELP. Following Tales, I quit buying Yes. Following Passion Play, I quit buying JT. You get the idea. I did still indulge in Crimson and Pink Floyd, but mostly I was listening to fusion during this era. Fusion led me to traditional jazz. I did not buy any Kansas, Styx, Toto, etc. albums. I considered that AOR fodder. I did buy the odd Fleetwood Mac or Eagles album at the time -- hardly prog bands. The band that brought me back to listening to anything rock-related was The Clash. London Calling was to my ears pretty proggy in terms of their willingness to incorporate all that had come before. So from the point of view of your average consumer at the time -- and make no mistake we're talking about consumerism here -- punk actually brought me back into the fold. |
So the Clash saved the rock'n'roul soul of an old progger? :)
Sweet.
And yeah, that "London Calling" album is amazing, ain't it? |
Gotta love the irony of it
|
|
Scratchy
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 16 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 110
|
Posted: July 29 2008 at 00:27 |
Personally I do not believe Punk killed Prog.In my pre teen years from about 1974 is when I really started to get into Progressive rock (Yes,Genesis & Pink Floyd),although I was not aware of the genre (Progressive Rock at the time - which I only heard of about in 1979'ish which is more or less the time Punk Rock was getting less exposure.New Wave & Mod (The Jam) bands started to grab the headlines at this time.
I think that around this time both Genres had lost imputous.All three of the above 'Prog' bands had already started to streamline their sound to variuos degrees from 1976 onwards,It is debatable whether punk actually influenced this streamlining.Metal started to splinter away from Prog also.i.e.Judas Priest was initially a Heavy Prog band but created a more Industrial sound.It is debatable if this was due to punk either.This new metal was just as influencial on Progs decline as Punk did.The younger heavy rock/metal/prog audience favoured a heavier sound generally,which got heavier & heavier until death metal was created.Ever since then an element of softer sounds have been added to this music because it probably couldn't get any heavier & probably making the musicians a little bit crazy playing it night after night.
I believe when Motorhead was formed is when a punk element was added to metal also.I am not sure whether Hardcore was formed around this period or not or perhaps later.I know alot of NWOBHM bands added an element of Punkish rock to their sound,although most didn't really.One thing I laugh about is that everyone mentions Budgie & Diamond Head as major bands at the time.As far as I can remember they were only had strong support locally (Budgie had already being going for years anyway as A Heavy Prog band in the South Wales area only - I actually saw them live around 1980 period).
Generally I believe that Punk rock & Progressive Rock are genres that are Retro forms of music now.They both belong to a time period.Music can be punkish or be progressive but neither can really truely be placed under the true Genre banner.Today punkish rock surely comes under either Indie or Alternative.If it reverts back to the true Punk sound surely it must be termed Retro-Punk.Alternatively there is alot of progressive sounding music out there,but I would not truely call Progressive Rock.Again if a band gets close to the classic Prog era sound I would call it Retro-Prog.
If you follow my reasoning I would say that both Punk & Prog are both dead.Long live progressive music though (Don't care about Punk really - although I have learned to like some of the marginal punkish (hybrid) groups)
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: July 29 2008 at 11:58 |
|
No, it didn't, but it sure as hell must've been a breath of fresh air. Punk>Prog.
|
|
Yorkie X
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 04 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1049
|
Posted: July 31 2008 at 05:51 |
Back to page one we go 
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46828
|
Posted: July 31 2008 at 06:10 |
jammun wrote:
Well we've nearly beaten the topic to death here, but my 2 cents:
Classic prog collapsed under its own weight. As one who was a prog consumer at the time, I can say that following the Works stuff I quit buying ELP. Following Tales, I quit buying Yes. Following Passion Play, I quit buying JT. You get the idea. I did still indulge in Crimson and Pink Floyd, but mostly I was listening to fusion during this era. Fusion led me to traditional jazz. I did not buy any Kansas, Styx, Toto, etc. albums. I considered that AOR fodder. I did buy the odd Fleetwood Mac or Eagles album at the time -- hardly prog bands. The band that brought me back to listening to anything rock-related was The Clash. London Calling was to my ears pretty proggy in terms of their willingness to incorporate all that had come before. So from the point of view of your average consumer at the time -- and make no mistake we're talking about consumerism here -- punk actually brought me back into the fold. |
missed this post earlier... but brother.... you just earned my coveted 'post of the week' award there with those wise words... so we have it figured out now.... punk didn't kill prog... it saved it....  very true indeed..... it was the like the hyena that either chased the dinosaurs to the high hills of pop music hell... or fed upon the old tough meat of the old prog warhorses. thus after a nice meal of the old decaying crap of mid to late 70's English prog... what did our punk hyenas do... make lots of little hyenas... and call them new wave... and prog was rescued.... if but for a short time before shred happy acne scarred kids discovered that fusing metal + complexity was enough to fool people into calling it prog thus fostering a vicious inbreeding where outside influences were run off and bands duelled to see how unintelligible and meaningless the lyrics could be and how complex.. yet pointless the music could be. *taken from Darwin's On the Origin of Species... vol 12.. prog rock*
Edited by micky - July 31 2008 at 06:12
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
Yorkie X
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 04 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1049
|
Posted: August 02 2008 at 05:01 |
|
.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
So punk killed the prog did it ?
