Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Music Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Generation gaps in progressive music
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedGeneration gaps in progressive music

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>
Author
Message
 Rating: Topic Rating: 3 Votes, Average 3.33  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
TheRollingOrange View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: June 28 2014
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 20
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 15 2014 at 07:31
Originally posted by Meltdowner Meltdowner wrote:

Originally posted by TheRollingOrange TheRollingOrange wrote:

I'm 20 and I rarely listen to modern prog.

Me too! Tongue
I listened to many Neo Prog albums and I still can't like most of it: I don't know what I should feel when I'm listening to it Ermm
I listen to many recent albums that are not from that sub-genre though , specially RPI, there are some strong albums from the last few years. Thumbs Up
I know right! Some of it sounds just too technical, and as you said, I don't know what to feel. 

Maybe this sounds a little dumb, but I forget what abbreviations stand for all the time, what's RPI again?
Back to Top
Meltdowner View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 25 2013
Location: Portugal
Status: Offline
Points: 10215
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 15 2014 at 07:35
Back to Top
TheRollingOrange View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: June 28 2014
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 20
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 15 2014 at 07:57
Ah, right, thank you! Have to check it ut someday.
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: 20244
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 15 2014 at 16:05
Originally posted by Toaster Mantis Toaster Mantis wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:


The bottom line is, barring kitsch sonics tricks or era specific instruments and tones, is that this question is very subjective.
 
 So TM, what music sounds dated to you and why?


You already mentioned The Moody Blues as an example, whom I find dated for the same reason as you do. Maybe it does not help for me that before hearing them very much, I'd also heard a lot of King Crimson and ELP's early songs. They show a very strong Moody Blues influence, but the songwriting's overall structure and instrumental interplay are significantly more intricate so when I get around to hearing the previous link I find it less involving. I'm used to that sound being accompanied by composition somewhat less... poppy?

Again, the specific analog synthesizer sounds and hyperactive playing I hear from both Keith Emerson and Rick Wakeman on ELP and Yes' classic records strike me as very 1970s in a way the more "church organ"-like sound the late Jon Lord used in Deep Purple at the same time didn't. Maybe it's just what I mentioned with those synthesizer sounds falling out of favour in the mid/late 1970s, only brought back for "retro" sounds.
I'm a fraid that I have to stand up for the analog sounding synths as Rick Wakeman once said, it's patch plug variance in sound made those early synths 'band specific'. Something that can't be done with modern pre programmed synths like Korgs and the rest. Perhap's sometimes what you hear as dated might just be unique to that band. Just something to think about.
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16045
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2014 at 09:49
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

...
 I'm a fraid that I have to stand up for the analog sounding synths as Rick Wakeman once said, it's patch plug variance in sound made those early synths 'band specific'. Something that can't be done with modern pre programmed synths like Korgs and the rest. Perhap's sometimes what you hear as dated might just be unique to that band. Just something to think about.
 
I have an issue with that. It's like saying that what makes music baroque is that lousy sounding instrument, or that the Romantic sound is due to having a dominant violin sound.
 
Now, if you said "too many violins", I would immediately say Beethoven and Tchaikovsky.
 
It so happened that the analog sounding thing was the new instrument at the time, and it could just as easily been the string off the trash can barrel bottom!  There is no telling what it is, except one very specific detail ...
 
Progressive, and popular music, at the time, had a predilection for choosing elements in music that were not used before as an expression. And we can sit and define these, and make a thorough study of the music with the context of history, instead of the stereotypical, and stupid, rock show context that is so prevalent here in these discussions.
 
I like that ... Albinoni, Handel, Bach ... are totally "dated" ... that is just such serious crock ... please look at music in its proper context! Now if you told me that Chuck Berry is "dated", I would agree, but then so is James Dean and Marlon Brando and dearest Marilyn, but we love to keep the fantasies alive! Frigid movie images, stuck on a wall of stucco dried paint and fingerprints for your favorite fantasy!
 
Weird! Totally weird! On top of it, no respect for the ability for those folks to compose and then play that music ... which we remember so fondly! Just like the others!
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
Toaster Mantis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 12 2008
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 5898
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2014 at 13:56
Yeah, a lot of 1980s production techniques for instance have aged just as much: Lots of echo effects on drums, use of drum programming and early digital synthesizers, reverbed vocals et cetera. It's just that the 1980s overall are culturally closer to my generation so they don't seem quite as "old-fashioned".

It's also that after listening to more and more very recent music (as in from the last three decades) things like the above mentioned start standing out more. Like my horizons aren't really being expanded just shifted forwards in time and I'm not sure what I can do about that. Like I say, a lot of the "datedness" I mention are rather surface things that you just have to suspend disbelief about in a sense but maybe that's something I actually get worse about with art as I get older!

One form of datedness that is more objective, though, is the cultural frame of reference of the lyrics: With quite a few of Frank Zappa's lyrics there's much of the satirical humour I don't quite understand since first I'm not American nor that familiar with US culture and politics in the 1960s/1970s as I presume his original audiences were. Same issue with some of Jethro Tull's older lyrics for that matter only applied to the UK instead.

Satirical humour has a tendency to not travel that well neither in chronology nor geography.
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook
Back to Top
Rednight View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 18 2014
Location: Mar Vista, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 4807
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2014 at 16:08
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Originally posted by Toaster Mantis Toaster Mantis wrote:


... In metal circles I encounter people who have trouble getting into stuff from before some point in the 1980s or 1990s for instance, especially if they started with more extreme styles and hence kind of "read the genre's history backwards". I'm feeling a similar generation gap I'm on the wrong side of in some other artistic media, like pre-1960s cinema or pre-WW1 literature (pre-Hemingway even) though I'm trying to expand my horizons there.

 

In the current King Crimson CD from their tour and in concert, they blew out a few times, and they can easily make metal circles sound like kids in the garage beating off!

 

Strange article for my ideas ... music is music and people are people, and we're making terms based on the fact that they wear this shoe made of leather 50 years ago, and shoes made of plastic today ... we're completely and totally ignoring the person and the artist, and this is my problem with the majority of the "metal circles" ... they are into a SOUND ... not into the music at all, or whatsoever.

 

I would like to suggest that you have to make a call to take the decision to define this theory of relativity in your mind, but not leave behind the rest of the world, or the rest of music out there regardless of what it is ... because, then it ain't no theory of nothing!

You happen to what "kids in the garage" sound like?

Edited by Rednight - October 16 2014 at 16:20
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: 20244
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2014 at 16:11
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

...
 I'm a fraid that I have to stand up for the analog sounding synths as Rick Wakeman once said, it's patch plug variance in sound made those early synths 'band specific'. Something that can't be done with modern pre programmed synths like Korgs and the rest. Perhap's sometimes what you hear as dated might just be unique to that band. Just something to think about.
 
I have an issue with that. It's like saying that what makes music baroque is that lousy sounding instrument, or that the Romantic sound is due to having a dominant violin sound.
 
Now, if you said "too many violins", I would immediately say Beethoven and Tchaikovsky.
 
It so happened that the analog sounding thing was the new instrument at the time, and it could just as easily been the string off the trash can barrel bottom!  There is no telling what it is, except one very specific detail ...
 
Progressive, and popular music, at the time, had a predilection for choosing elements in music that were not used before as an expression. And we can sit and define these, and make a thorough study of the music with the context of history, instead of the stereotypical, and stupid, rock show context that is so prevalent here in these discussions.
 
I like that ... Albinoni, Handel, Bach ... are totally "dated" ... that is just such serious crock ... please look at music in its proper context! Now if you told me that Chuck Berry is "dated", I would agree, but then so is James Dean and Marlon Brando and dearest Marilyn, but we love to keep the fantasies alive! Frigid movie images, stuck on a wall of stucco dried paint and fingerprints for your favorite fantasy!
 
Weird! Totally weird! On top of it, no respect for the ability for those folks to compose and then play that music ... which we remember so fondly! Just like the others!
Ok, but what's the issue?
Back to Top
Prog_Traveller View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 29 2005
Location: Bucks county PA
Status: Offline
Points: 1474
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2014 at 16:52
[I brought this up in the "What would you like to see discussed more?" thread, but I think the subject deserves its own thread. I basically wondered aloud whether the lack of discussion of newer bands that aren't terribly informed by the 1960s/1970s prog-rock movement might have something to do with the aesthetics and perhaps ethos/sensibility of much music from the 1980s/1990s onwards coming across as too modern. (for lack of a better word)]
 
 
Could you please give some examples of bands who fit into the "not influenced by older prog bands?" I'm not saying they don't exist. I'm just curious as to which bands are considered to fall into this category.
Back to Top
bhikkhu View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 06 2006
Location: AČ Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 5109
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2014 at 20:47
I think you might find that some of the most avant grade new artists most likely have at least one classic Yes, Genesis, Crimson, Rush etc. in their collections. Even many punks of the late '70s who raged against prog later revealed they were actually fans. Henry Rollins loves King Crimson and John Lydon loves Pink Floyd. Influences run deep even if you can't hear them outright.

For myself I am open to anything. I grew up on the classics and still listen to them right along with Cardiacs, Diablo Swing Orchestra, Birds and Buildings and Necromonkey.
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: October 16 2014 at 23:09
Originally posted by Prog_Traveller Prog_Traveller wrote:

(...)
 
 
Could you please give some examples of bands who fit into the "not influenced by older prog bands?" I'm not saying they don't exist. I'm just curious as to which bands are considered to fall into this category.
I suppose that there are very few of a young prog bands and (or) solo artists who weren't listening to the classic prog bands and that they did not receive a degree of influence by the prog classics.
However, there's a bunch of great young prog bands / solo artists in which music that influence of the classic prog era can not be detected by the audience; in that case the audience accepts what is a band / artist's  statement on the influences - which may be true but it is non-verifiable, i.e. such an artist / band can hide that specific influences, and to start naming well-known & big prog names that the audience / fan base is usually familiar with them.


Edited by Svetonio - October 16 2014 at 23:31
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16045
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2014 at 23:18
Originally posted by Prog_Traveller Prog_Traveller wrote:

[I brought this up in the "What would you like to see discussed more?" thread, but I think the subject deserves its own thread. I basically wondered aloud whether the lack of discussion of newer bands that aren't terribly informed by the 1960s/1970s prog-rock movement might have something to do with the aesthetics and perhaps ethos/sensibility of much music from the 1980s/1990s onwards coming across as too modern. (for lack of a better word)]
 ...
 
 
I just think that at the time, in the late 60's and early 70's, that there was a lot of new electric/electronic equipment available and that everyone used it as much as possible for effect, not necessarily composition.
 
Does that make it ... progressive ... and this is not something that I agree to necessarily, but the spirit of effort and trying different things is good, and a large inspiration for the progressive design and idea.
 
This, would not be valuable today, as much, specially with newer musicians, because the equipment is not new and for the most part unavailable. However, many of those sounds are now "canned" and anyone can use them, and my thoughts are that folks just are not as experienced and willing to experiment with these sounds, as other did some 40 years ago. The market place and its design, while excellent in terms of its open-ness to anything/everything, in many ways, forces folks to be more "acceptable" and "similar" to others, than it does to itself. This is very common in artistic scenes that tend to repeat until something new comes along, that others will copy and do something else with.
 
Thus, in my book, there is really no generational gap per se, since the music is continually evolving, into something else, but we're comparing today's carrots to some carrots that were grown 40 years ago, and while they may taste somewhat the same, their use might not have been in the soup that you made. It's still a Fender and a Korg, or Roland, or something else, but the uses are just a bit different than they were then!
 
It's a tough discussion. It's sort of like saying that skirts were not in vogue yesterday, and mini's are in vogue today ... there were mini's then, as well, but not many folks saw them unless you perused Playboy! Does that make those girls/folks progressive and us backwards? I don't think so.
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
Toaster Mantis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 12 2008
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 5898
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 17 2014 at 07:40
Originally posted by Prog_Traveller Prog_Traveller wrote:

Could you please give some examples of bands who fit into the "not influenced by older prog bands?" I'm not saying they don't exist. I'm just curious as to which bands are considered to fall into this category.


Aluk Todolo, Blut Aus Nord, Russian Circles, Slint, Virus (the Norwegian one)... basically a lot of post-rock and the more abstract-minded black/death metal groups. Well, most of them do take some influence from the original generation prog/psych with King Crimson in particular but they're usually just one source of inspiration with as much coming from the 1980s/1990s and onwards. Also progressive metal groups like Adramelch, Fates Warning and Virgin Steele who are basically late-1970s/early-1980s style traditional heavy metal except way more ambitious than usual.

In terms of "ideology" or perhaps more accurately artistic ethos, they are also not coming from really the same place in terms of thinking about songwriting as the late 1960s/early-mid-1970s progressive rock movement and that's the important thing. What I'm curious to know if the older posters here have problems with more "modern" music aesthetics especially from the 1980s and onwards.

Maybe progressive rock doesn't have quite as marked generation gaps as metal does, perhaps as a result of its golden age lasting much shorter (1967-1974 vs. 1976-1994) and being less motivated by a quest for extremity in sound+vision?
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook
Back to Top
Prog_Traveller View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 29 2005
Location: Bucks county PA
Status: Offline
Points: 1474
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 19 2014 at 18:25
Metal started in 1976? With what album? That's news to me. Also, I didn't know prog ended in 1974. Again, news to me.
 
I suppose there are generation gaps in prog music in part because there were huge gaps when prog wasn't very popular(such as the eighties and nineties). For that reason there seems to be fewer prog fans in their mid twenties to mid thirties than other age groups(this is based on research I have done on this site).


Edited by Prog_Traveller - October 19 2014 at 18:25
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16045
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 19 2014 at 21:37
Originally posted by Prog_Traveller Prog_Traveller wrote:

Metal started in 1976? With what album? That's news to me. Also, I didn't know prog ended in 1974. Again, news to me.
 ...

Agreed. Metal was around in the late 60's. All you had to do is be in New York! Even though Iggy, Ramones and some others could be considered a bit on the punk side, in many ways they helped make metal. It just wasn't my scene or my preferences.

Prog never ended. In the late 70's and even 80's Peter Hammill was highly active, and did not fall asleep!
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
Prog_Traveller View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 29 2005
Location: Bucks county PA
Status: Offline
Points: 1474
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 19 2014 at 22:23
Well imo(but I am by no means a lone in thinking this)metal started with Black Sabbath. There were bands who hinted at it before them and had metal elements (Just like with KC and prog)but BS are almost unarguably the first true metal band.
Back to Top
Toaster Mantis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 12 2008
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 5898
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 20 2014 at 04:22
Well, of course heavy metal's been around since 1970 but I'm under the impression it didn't take off as a self-conscious movement until the mid/late 1970s when Judas Priest released Sad Wings of Destiny. Most of the heavy metal bands from then and onwards do owe more to Priest than Sabbath really. With classic progressive rock I get the impression that around 1974 or 1975 there's a sharp drop-off in the amount of highly acclaimed and influential records released, not to mention several influential musicians like Robert Fripp and Peter Gabriel leaving their respective flagship projects.

If we amend the prog-rock movement's era to 1968-1977 or so and metal's golden age to 1970-1994 my point still stands that the latter genre's heyday lasted much longer.
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook
Back to Top
Prog_Traveller View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 29 2005
Location: Bucks county PA
Status: Offline
Points: 1474
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 20 2014 at 06:40
Well you can't have it both ways. If metal didn't officially start until 76/77 then you can't say that prog officially started in 68. ITCOTCK was 69 but even prog didn't become a self conscious movement(if such a thing is important to you)until at least 71. Therefore if you change the parameters for metal then change them for prog as well. However, I think most would agree that "Paranoid" was the album that started metal and not SWOD. Most music critics refer to a NWOBM(new wave of British Heavy metal). This would imply there was a first wave. The first wave started earlier than 76/77. Priest may have kicked off or actually predated(by a few years)the NWOBHM scene but they did not start it nor did they start HM. Saying a movement is conscioius or unconscious becomes tricky and even a judgement call. Prog wasn't even called prog back then in the early seventies so you could say that wasn't exactly conscious either. But back to metal for a second. It didn't even actually become popular until around 82/83(at least as far as the mainstream goes). With prog it was more like 71/72. So for metal around ten years of mainstream exposure(83-93) and for prog maybe seven or eight years(72-78). So metal still beats out prog by a couple of years.
 
So ultimately heavy metals "heyday" lasted longer than prog's but by exactly how much is up for debate. HM has always had more "mass appeal" over all. Both genres have benefited from the internet though. It's hard to say which one has benefited more. Metal hasn't needed a boost as much as prog has so it's easy to say prog has benefited more. However, subgenres like prog metal and other less mainstream forms of metal probably have benefitted more than others. In 1992 or so metal sort of went underground due to the rise of grunge and alternative(which more or less killed off the hair metal bands)so for a little while other than a few well known bands who refused to compromise their sound(I'm thinking of Megadeath,  Pantera, Iron Maiden and a few others who while not super huge or mainstream didn't die off)metal sort of languished in obscurity although not to the extent prog did. But then the European metal scene took off(or maybe never really went away)and helped to raise awareness of metal again. Meanwhile 1992 was also the year Dream Theater's "images and words" came out which started a slow brewing prog resurgence as well as a gradual awareness of something called "progressive metal." So all the dates aside it's interesting to see what became what when and how regardless of where you want to put the "cut off date" or define each genre. Also, I think it's interesting to note that many metal heads became prog heads through metal especially prog metal. I have seen this quite a bit. I am sort of the opposite(which I suppose is much more rare)in that I became more interested in metal through prog(and prog metal).


Edited by Prog_Traveller - October 20 2014 at 06:58
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 20 2014 at 10:21
I tend to agree with TM about Sad Wings of Destiny.  An even more hardcore metalhead would probably cite the Iron Maiden debut as the starting point, as the first true metal album.  And I would like to bring into this discussion an aspect peculiar to the metal community, on which they fundamentally disagree with the rest of the rock music world:  that HEAVY METAL is not the same thing as METAL.  So, yes, Black Sabbath's debut is the first heavy metal album.  Or even if it isn't THE first, nobody would dispute that it is heavy metal.  But when metalheads use the word METAL, just metal and no prefix or suffix, it specifically refers to the particular kind of heavy metal music that came about in the late 70s/80s and is directly responsible for the rapid growth and development of metal as a separate and distinct subculture that has nothing to do with rock.  Indeed, it is not unusual to find metalheads who don't listen to regular rock music of any kind (including prog rock) at all.  But that, I wager, would not have been the case in the early 70s when the distinctions between heavy metal, as it was called then, and rock were more blurred.  So the press were not wrong to coin the term NWOBHM.  It was a new wave of heavy metal, which birthed a whole new world called metal.  There's a reason it's called metal-archives and not heavy metal archives.  Metal archives does not use the words metal and heavy metal interchangeably and in fact identify heavy metal as a sub genre of metal (as in, like thrash metal, death metal, power metal, etc).  I am not saying they are right and the rest of the world is wrong, only that the word metal has an entirely different coinage when used by hardcore metalheads.  And if we posit that they should not object to other interpretations of the word, we should also not object when bands like Muse get called prog in that case.
Back to Top
Toaster Mantis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 12 2008
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 5898
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 20 2014 at 13:21
I'm pushing back metal's heyday as beginning with the Black Sabbath S/T not Paranoid. It's just that if you look at most metal bands now they draw more from Judas Priest and Iron Maiden than Sabbath except the most traditional or psychedelic subtypes of doom metal - in case of the more extreme subgenres the history basically starts with Venom and Slayer.

My point is just that SWoD is where heavy metal starts to really begin separating itself from "normal" hard rock music and going away from blues influence into a more... "neo-classical" melodic sensibility I guess? Something that of course was present in Deep Purple already, but it was first JP who used that almost exclusively.

With progressive rock it's somewhat trickier because it's not as clearly defined a genre as metal, and originally more a "cultural movement" I guess? General consensus seems to be that the classic British scene begun to decline in the amount of influential records coming out somewhere between 1974-1977, certainly also in popularity in the same time space. Of course, this becomes more complicated if you factor in things like the Rock In Opposition scene, which did not really take off until then, but I don't think they ever reached the popularity or cultural influence level of the prog rock bands popular in 1970s' first half.
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.691 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.