Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > General Music Discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Should the Beach Boys be considered Proto?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedShould the Beach Boys be considered Proto?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 12>
Author
Message
 Rating: Topic Rating: 3 Votes, Average 2.33  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20503 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 10 2014 at 14:12
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:


Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:



If Proto Prog is really supposed to mean the prototypical forerunner and inspiration for the late 60's prog that follows, then I think that Pet Sounds and the Beach Boys meet that criteria." It may do little at this point, but it least it sets my intention straight and hopefully  people can no longer be concerned with what album influenced what other album and when and return focus back to Pet Sounds and it's technical influence on the Beatles starting with the song Here, There and Everywhere through to Sgt. Pepper's.





I'll echo Guldbamsen - no one is arguing the influence on The Beatles, but The Beatles were not a prog rock band. 
Yes, that's the whole point of this exercise, the Beatles are considered Proto Prog in PA, not Progressive Rock. I'm just trying to keep the apples with apples, so to speak.
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31165 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 10 2014 at 14:23
Your first post asks "Should the Beach Boys be considered Proto Prog?"

The argument in favor needs to demonstrate influence on progressive rock artists.
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20503 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 10 2014 at 14:41
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Your first post asks "Should the Beach Boys be considered Proto Prog?"The argument in favor needs to demonstrate influence on progressive rock artists.
Again it, it was their influence on other Proto prog groups that then went on to influence prog groups, either by technical proficiency as Proto groups from the Beatles to the Zombies wanted to copy their 'clean clear American sound' or just the fact that that album pushed the beatles to excel and virtually created the Progressive genre in all but name only. By the way, what progressive groups did the Beatles actually influence? Or to be more precise, a lot of people claim influence but just who exactly took up the Beatles mantle and ran with it?

Edited by SteveG - September 10 2014 at 14:41
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31165 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 10 2014 at 14:59
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Your first post asks "Should the Beach Boys be considered Proto Prog?"The argument in favor needs to demonstrate influence on progressive rock artists.
Again it, it was their influence on other Proto prog groups that then went on to influence prog groups,


Stop right there.

We don't do "proto-proto-prog". 
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20503 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 10 2014 at 15:01
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:


Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Your first post asks "Should the Beach Boys be considered Proto Prog?"The argument in favor needs to demonstrate influence on progressive rock artists.
Again it, it was their influence on other Proto prog groups that then went on to influence prog groups,
Stop right there.We don't do "proto-proto-prog". 
Come on. Isn't it all Proto proto proto prog for Chirsts sake.
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31165 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 10 2014 at 15:02
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:


Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Your first post asks "Should the Beach Boys be considered Proto Prog?"The argument in favor needs to demonstrate influence on progressive rock artists.
Again it, it was their influence on other Proto prog groups that then went on to influence prog groups,
Stop right there.We don't do "proto-proto-prog". 
Come on. Isn't it all Proto proto proto prog for Chirsts sake.


Yes, it's turtles all the way down.
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20503 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 10 2014 at 15:05
^Now if we can just figure out what happened before the Big bang...
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 10 2014 at 18:47
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

A factual error does not throw an entire argument out of the window, the error was obviously a mistake but it would have been wrong to have assumed which album SteveG was referring to. To assume is to make an ass of u and me.

I'd like to remind SteveG of a post from June of this year:
Originally posted by someone someone wrote:

Dean's take on the Pet  Sounds/Revolver/Sgt. Pepper's back and forth influences are absolutely text book. The only thing I would disagree with is the friendly rivally between the Beatles and Brian Wilson. While absolutely friendly in basis, could you imagine the effects of the pressure on someone with Brian Wilson's pysche? Brian may not have seen the rivally as friendly in his mind and that could have been a key issue in the way this all played out. And surprisingly, none of the music itself was actually influenced, just the ideas for concepts  for albums.

Peace out
It may not throw an entire arguement out of the window? But it does give good fodder for you're not considering the arguement and making one liners like 'Rubber Soul was released before Pet Sounds" which, while true, would make the arguement about the  technical achievements Pet Sounds superfluous to you and therefore, as usual, dodge the issue and retreat back into the comfort of past archival posts and long standing practices. The proof is simply your lack of comment of the tecnical arguement in the post. But I'll state again that ultimately the fault is mine to begin with, not yours.
To clear the air, this is my philosophy for any post I make on the internet
  • don't assume anything
    • never read between the lines.
    • if in doubt ask, 
    • question all ambiguity
    • take nothing for granted.
  • attack the argument not the man.
  • research archival posts, whatever I post today does not render all previous posts redundant.
  • be aware that not everyone is a middle-aged, middle-class Englishman who grew-up in the 1960s & 70s.
  • be polite, never underestimate your reader and never insult them.
So if you want to cast aspersions about my lack of response to your argument I will take them on the chin and move on. My one-liner was a tad more than Rubber Soul was released before Pet Sounds - it also contained another generally accepted 'fact', Rubber Soul influenced Pet Sounds. And that is germane when discussing who influenced who and when. The central point of your argument is Wilson's use of the "studio as an instrument", a phrase that we hear often in regard to The Beatles and can be traced back through Joe Meek, Phil Spector and Tom Dowd to Les Paul who pioneered studio overdubbing. And therein lies the problem - this is first attributed to The Beatles on Rubber Soul in 1965 and progressed further during the Revolver sessions, which we have already determined was more-or-less "in the can" by the time Pet Sounds was released. I still maintain (as per my post in the SMiLE thread back in June) that Pet Sounds influenced some of Revolver, but not by any significant degree and probably just on the one accepted track (Here, There and Everywhere) - [no back-tracking from me there]. What also cannot be disputed (because Paul McCartney has acknowledged it), is that Pet Sounds inspired The Beatles to produce Sgt Pepper's. How much of the studio techniques that Wilson employed were aped by The Beatles and the Abbey Road Engineers is a matter of conjecture, I suspect it was more a parallel development and exploration by artistically gifted people given a free-run in a studio. As yourself has stated, none of this "influence" was in music, though there are "Beach-Boys" references in a couple of Beatles songs (starting with Girl from Rubber Soul) - they were incredibly eclectic in the truest sense of the word and pulled musical influences from practically every piece of music they'd ever heard regardless of genre or style and that is a reflection of their background in music and what they grew-up listening to. This practically defines everything about The Beatles and goes a long way to explain why the seemingly simple "Beat" tunes they were writing in the early 60s surprised later musicologists when they tried to meticulously analyse them [ref: Theodor W. Adorno]. This eclecticism extended to the sound of the instruments and playing techniques - they'd hear something they liked the sound of and wanted to replicate it in their own way, McCartney's switch to the Rick bass was an example of that.

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:


 I don't want to continue to split hairs over this as I have now clarified my position using Sgt Peppers to correctly bolter my technical arguement and with still no reaction is forthcoming so I'll use a musical/historical one to put my point across.

This extract is from the definative biography of the Beatles titled Shout by Philip Norman first published in 1981. It is his decription of the Beatles coping with competition from two Beatles post Revolver albums:

"After Revolver, every ceative mind in pop was awakening tot he possibilities of an album that was not just a compendedium of past hits but a self-contained on a definate theme, it's tracks working interdependently like movements in a classical concerto. The two posr Revolver productions from across the Atlantic that had taken the Beatles ideas several notches further on were largely responsible for driving them back into the studio. One was theBeach Boys Pet Sounds, an almost Mozartian montage of mulidubbed harmonies and counterpoint, recorded almost single-handedly by Brian Wilson while the rest of the band were out on tour.
The second even sharper goad was Freak-Out by the new California group called the Mothers Of Invention: one of the first ever "double Albums", pungent with inconoclatic wit of their leader Frank Zappa, and embellished with quasi-comical sound efects and scraps of conversation.
Tge beatles had originally meant their anwser to Pet Sounds and Freak-Out to be an album in the most literal sense, each track a snap shot of Livepool as they remembered it from childhood."

Now how is possible that of the two albums most (and by all accounts solely) responsible for the Beatles to competatively respond to in order to produce Sgt. Peppers, one is considered a full blown Avant/ Progressive Rock work while the other does not merit a nod in PA's  Proto Prog catagory with it's "almost Mozartian montage of multidubbed harmonies and counterpoint?
We don't have album tagging so an artist is placed in a category that is the best for their entire body of work and not a single album, Zappa cannot be pinned to a single genre or category but we have to pick one and his placement in RIO/Avant-Prog is not for Freak Out! alone. Many "proto" artists reside in other subgenres here.

Inspiring is not influencing - this is not a subtle distinction nor is it splitting-hairs over word definitions. For the sake of comparison an album that is influenced by another artist or album will show some sonic or musical evidence of that influence, an album that is inspired by another artist or album will have no such sonic or musical evidence. 

At their peak The Beatles were without rival, the rivalry and competition with other bands is overstated and exaggerated (more to bolster the careers of their "rivals" than The Beatles themselves), other bands may have seen themselves as serious contenders but in reality there was simply no competition. Even in the field of artistic creation I suspect that the "rivals" put more effort into trying to catch-up with The Beatles (erm Their Satanic Majesties Request) than the Beatles ever did in trying to better what someone else had already done. But that is not to say The Beatles were not inspired by what they heard to push themselves and their own creations. Pet Sounds and Freak Out! didn't goad them back into the studio, that's being over melodramatic and just a little "creative journalism" on the part of Mr Norman.

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

 

Mr. Gorbechov,.. tear..down..this..wall!
There does appear to be a number of misconceptions about Proto Prog as we use it here at the Prog Archives (as opposed to how other people use it elsewhere). For the purposes of the PA Proto Prog is a category that collates the embryonic beginnings of Progressive Rock and not its influences (neither direct nor indirect) nor what inspired it. Proto Prog is not a list of bands that influenced the early Prog bands (that would be a somewhat daft and meaningless category). 


Edited by Dean - September 10 2014 at 18:55
What?
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20503 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 10 2014 at 19:18
^Not an attack, just an observation. Printed words that yeild no response. But  it is my subjective opinion and you have the right to resent it or view it as false. The only one that knows the truth is you, so you are correct in your criticism.

As for Rubber Soul being some sort of vanguard of studio recording, that to me is laughable. As I stated, the album was praised for it's Dylan like song developments and overall song quality, not it's sonic quality which was still very much in line with previous Beatles recordings in regards to Microphone placement and types, recording volume, EQ ing and the like. There is nothing sonically remarkable about Rubber Soul compared to Help or A Hard Day's Night.

My quandry with the Proto Prog catagory is if the Proto Prog groups did not influence any future Prog groups, why have the catagory and if the criteria is that they influenced future Progressive Rock groups then how does one prove it?

The only substantial way to prove one musical artist's influence over another is through vocal and musical mimicry, not by the instruments they used or how many guitar players they had. In other words, if the Beatles are Proto Prog then who sounds like them? Who did Lucy In The Sky part 2. or I AM the Walrus (Again). Hendrix is listed as Proto Prog but who the hell sounds like him and exactly why is he Proto Prog? Again, I've never heard Yes do something that sounds like Purple Haze or Are You Experienced. Thank God.

Which brings us back to Pet Sounds. Who sounds like the Beach Boys doing Sloop John B. or Wouldn't It be Nice? The same answer as the rest. Nobody. So how come the're not Proto Prog. They seem to fit the same criteria.Which is still as vague when I started out this comparison. Perhaps it because Proto has had it's day

Edited by SteveG - September 10 2014 at 19:29
Back to Top
ProgFather View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: September 06 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 2 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 10 2014 at 20:05
No, at least not until "Love You" ....where Brian plays the farty synths and sings "Solar System"

I reserve the right to add humor to my second post, BTW. Tongue
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 10 2014 at 20:05
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

^Not an attack, just an observation. Printed words that yeild no response. But  it is my subjective opinion and you have the right to resent it or view it as false. The only one that knows the truth is you, so you are correct in your criticism.
Eh? There are more polite ways of requesting a response from me (or anyone). 
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:


As for Rubber Soul being some sort of vanguard of studio recording, that to me is laughable. As I stated, the album was praised for it's Dylan like song developments and overall song quality, not it's sonic quality which was still very much in line with previous Beatles recordings in regards to Microphone placement and types, recording volume, EQ ing and the like. There is nothing sonically remarkable about Rubber Soul compared to Help or A Hard Day's Night.
No one ever claimed it was a vanguard of studio recording.

Unfortunately the appropriate Wikipedia link will not embed into a post, go to Wikipedia and search "The Beatles' recording technology" - failing that, the cited reference is Lewisohn - The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions p. 54

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:


My quandry with the Proto Prog catagory is if the Proto Prog groups did not influence any future Prog groups, why have the catagory and if the criteria is that they influenced future Progressive Rock groups then how does one prove it?
That isn't a written criteria. The word "influence" does not appear in our genre definition of Proto Prog. As I said: "There does appear to be a number of misconceptions about Proto Prog as we use it here at the Prog Archives"

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:


The only substantial way to prove one musical artist's influence over another is through vocal and musical mimicry, not by the instruments they used or how many guitar players they had. In other words, if the Beatles are Proto Prog then who sounds like them? Who did Lucy In The Sky part 2. or I AM the Walrus (Again). Hendrix is listed as Proto Prog but who the hell sounds like him and exactly why is he Proto Prog? Again, I've never heard Yes do something that sounds like Purple Haze or Are You Experienced. Thank God.
The influence of The Beatles is evident in many of the early Prog albums, but doing Lucy In The Sky part 2 would be a pastiche not an influence. But as I said: "For the purposes of the PA Proto Prog is a category that collates the embryonic beginnings of Progressive Rock and not its influences (neither direct nor indirect) nor what inspired it. Proto Prog is not a list of bands that influenced the early Prog bands (that would be a somewhat daft and meaningless category). "
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:



Which brings us back to Pet Sounds. Who sounds like the Beach Boys doing Sloop John B. or Wouldn't It be Nice? The same answer as the rest. Nobody. So how come the're not Proto Prog. They seem to fit the same criteria.Which is still as vague when I started out this comparison. Perhaps it because Proto has had it's day
Proto Prog is not about influence. 

I think the Proto Prog category had its day about ten years ago. Adding bands now is superfluous. 
What?
Back to Top
earlyprog View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Neo / PSIKE / Heavy Teams

Joined: March 05 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 2086 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 11 2014 at 05:09
Influence on the progressive rock movement - including its earliest form, proto prog - does not render the music proto prog.  Beatles and Hendrix are proto prog because they actually played long sections of music that was prog rock but not yet fully developed to song long or even album long prog rock. For instance, Beatles could be labelled proto crossover prog, proto raga prog etc. Hendrix played space rock (7th Stone), as did the Beatles (Flying), a prog rock genre. I cannot think of any Beach Boys song that represents proto 'insert prog rock genre'. Well perhaps something on Smiley Smile.

However, the Beach Boys I think did contribute to the earliedst stage of the development of progressive rock, namely the Ideation phase and perhaps even the conceptualization stage. But they never entered the development stage as the bands listed as proto prog on PA. Pet Sounds and Sgt. Pepper freed the minds of the musicians (ideation stage) including Robert Fripp and the rest is history. 

Technology in its broadest sense (studio technique, song writing skills, instruments, management) surely was the input to the development of prog rock, but if the output - the music - does not sound like prog it cannot even be labelled proto prog. 
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20503 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 11 2014 at 08:47
Originally posted by earlyprog earlyprog wrote:

Influence on the progressive rock movement - including its earliest form, proto prog - does not render the music proto prog.  Beatles and Hendrix are proto prog because they actually played long sections of music that was prog rock but not yet fully developed to song long or even album long prog rock. For instance, Beatles could be labelled proto crossover prog, proto raga prog etc. Hendrix played space rock (7th Stone), as did the Beatles (Flying), a prog rock genre. I cannot think of any Beach Boys song that represents proto 'insert prog rock genre'. Well perhaps something on Smiley Smile.

However, the Beach Boys I think did contribute to the earliedst stage of the development of progressive rock, namely the Ideation phase and perhaps even the conceptualization stage. But they never entered the development stage as the bands listed as proto prog on PA. Pet Sounds and Sgt. Pepper freed the minds of the musicians (ideation stage) including Robert Fripp and the rest is history. 

Technology in its broadest sense (studio technique, song writing skills, instruments, management) surely was the input to the development of prog rock, but if the output - the music - does not sound like prog it cannot even be labelled proto prog. 
Agreed, now that the confusing dictum of influence on post Proto Bands that has plagued PA members has been resoundly clarified not once but twice, I will put forth the Beach Boys Smiley Smile album as Proto Prog. While this album is the remnants of the defunct Smile sessions it does contain one multi part suite like track recorded before the Smile sessions.

Good Vibrations was recorded at 17 different sessions and four different recording studios. It ws edited together to form a multi part song suite with an intro, verse, chorus, repeat of verse and chorus, and (for the time) a lenthy instrumental break and final chorus while sporting lyrics that today are dated but were quite hip in 1966 with the added psychedelic embelishment of an Electro-Theremin. (see Revolver: How the Beatles Reimagined Rock 'n' Roll by Robert Rodridguez)

This song is psychedelic enough for me and is as proto as anything else stated and warrants the band's placement in that catogory.


Edited by SteveG - September 11 2014 at 09:06
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20503 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 11 2014 at 09:18
[Originally quoted by Dean]
Proto Prog is not about influence.
I think the Proto Prog category had its day about ten years ago. Adding bands now is superfluous. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Proto



Proto Prog not  being about influence is fine, you stated that twice as this will help many members that believed that it was  based on influence as you can see from the posts in this thread. Adding the Beach Boys then for  their work on Good Vibrations, based on it's heavy nod to psychedelia and suite like song construction, would not be superfluous then but simply correct. Refer to post above to EarlyProg.


Edited by SteveG - September 11 2014 at 09:21
Back to Top
Tapfret View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: August 12 2007
Location: Bryant, Wa
Status: Offline
Points: 8571 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 11 2014 at 11:47
Are you this guy?


Bandcamp
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31165 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 11 2014 at 11:57
 LOL

Edited by Padraic - September 11 2014 at 11:58
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20503 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 11 2014 at 17:02
Headshot   I'm actually this guy Tapfret. Why don't you Private Pessage me so I can have you over for dinner. Then you could meet my friends and jam. The're a lot of fun too.







"Doing the right thing is never superfluous."                                                                                                                                             

Edited by SteveG - September 13 2014 at 10:09
Back to Top
King Crimson776 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 12 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2762 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 12 2014 at 02:40
If the Beatles are, then yes. Whatever the reasoning was for them, go with that. 'Smile' is certainly more progressive than any Beatles album.

The counter would be that the Beatles have a greater amount of proto prog music. I think it's inane to deny the place of Pet Sounds, Smile, Surf's Up and various other BB moments in the development of prog just because it would mean adding all those fluffy early BB albums. The Beatles had those too.
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Online
Points: 64367 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 12 2014 at 03:32
Originally posted by King Crimson776 King Crimson776 wrote:

'Smile' is certainly more progressive than any Beatles album.


 Clap
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy
Back to Top
Svetonio View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 20 2010
Location: Serbia
Status: Offline
Points: 10213 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 12 2014 at 03:46
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

(...)

And the funny thing is, is that I don't even like the Beach Boys!
LOL, if you're not their fan, then you should start this thread with The Steve Miller Band in the title of the thread. Because they were  a Progressive rock band in the late sixties; I mean, when our beloved genre already existed as such. 
But somehow The Steve Miller Band are not in Proto Prog / Prog-Related section yet although they were released two full prog albums (the two of the milestones of the prog genre, actually) in 1968. Even Pink Floyd stolen from them some very interesting riffs..







Shocked



Edited by Svetonio - September 12 2014 at 06:27
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.315 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.