Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Music Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Is Prog For Musicians Only?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedIs Prog For Musicians Only?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 89101112>
Author
Message
Ian C Williams View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: March 10 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 24
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 12 2007 at 14:04
I disagree that prog is for musicians (oh how I wish that were true so I could feel elite; come on, you know you want to), but agree that musicians are for prog. My example of this influence is my own playing: before I heard Wakeman, Banks, Emerson, Wright, Eno, and Fripp playing keyboards, I had no aspirations to play piano. Before I heard Squire, Lee, Rutherford, Lake, and Reingold on bass guitar, there was no reason for me to play it.

All I had heard in "lesser" music (prepares heat shield), such as the stadium rock bands, pop music, etc, was a steady riff with very little variation. With our masters in the progressive genres, on all sides, I became very oriented toward music. I think that because of prog I have come to appreciate harmony, melody, rhythm, and music in all aspects much more clearly.
                         A Desert Island?
[IMG]http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i101/Penumbran/INMYTREE.png" border="0
Back to Top
seamus View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: January 01 2007
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 300
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 12 2007 at 15:15
Absolutely not!!!!
Back to Top
Chus View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: Venezuela
Status: Offline
Points: 1991
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 12 2007 at 15:37
Originally posted by Arrrghus Arrrghus wrote:

Originally posted by Chus Chus wrote:

Originally posted by TheLamb TheLamb wrote:

Whoever says to be a musician requires Knowledge in Theory is just a not very serious person... I study classical piano since a very young age. I practice 10 hours a day when I have the time... Believe me, I know a hella lotta theory and It has helped me in the technical part of composing and improvising, but music is all about spirit, and feeling what your doing... Not knowing everything... If you are as talented as a rat and you study theory like crazy does that does not make you a musician... To tell you the truth, someties I feel I would have done better off without theory... Whoever says Jimmy Hendrix is not a musician is just unworthy of... listening to music in general.
 

As for Prog.... It depends which type of prog... Bands like Dream Theater could be farther appreciated by Musicians because their music sometimes seems cold and mathy... technical, even scientific. If you understand the theory and technical aspect of what they are doing it just gives you an edge on people who don't... where as bands who are more atmospheric and warm, who use complexity and "proginess" to actually create an atmosphere rather than a very impressive piece, DT style... these bands could be basically appreciated by anyone...

 

 

Of course i am makng bold generalizations, and don't start being narrow minded about this post, nothing is 100%. there are always exceptions... in everything...

 

 Well perhaps calling him a non-musician at the expense of lacking knowledge of theory is a bit harsh, but I believe I make my point calling him an amateur musician.  I never wanted to put down Jimi Hendrix as an influential guitarist with innate talent. In fact, I enjoy his music to an extent and his phrasing is fantastic, but I would never call him a professional musician because of his bare influence

 

 And to the general public: since when someone who recognises technical skill is bound to like cold, mathematical music? I think that's a stupid generalisation. Some people rely on technical skill alone (licks), some rely on musicianship and technical skill (notes), else how would you put the infamous Charlie Parker, perhaps one of the most amazing jazz improvisers? is he a mathematical musician just because he's technically good? I believe his playing transmits even more than a simple so-called "emotional" lick by Gilmour. Making just a couple of notes on a measure doesn't make a player more emotional, it makes him "raw" or "direct"; I believe people like Charlie Parker are able to make a very profound musical poetry, he could embellish the measure putting more notes on it, without it all sounding like w**kery. And about DT not being emotional: that's all subjective. I, for one, believe they could be emotional at times, but I don't necessarily have to share the emotions they convey.  


Hendrix was definately a professional musician: he played and instrument and was played for it.

You do realize you're calling Steve Howe an amateur musician, too? (He admitted in an interview that he couldn't read music). Music doesn't have to be "written down" to be "music."

Also, Django Rheinhart could not read music (hell, some speculate he couldn't read at all), yet Segovia respected him tremendously and once asked Django for sheet (for which Djano famously replied that he was improvising). Does this make him less professional or less of a musician than Andres? Of course not. That would be superficial and arrogant. It's like saying Bob is smarter than Rick because Bob has a Masters degree while Rick only has a bachelor's. Knowledge doesn't translate into intelligence - experience, thought and the appropriate conveying of emotions translate into intelligence.



 
 Would you call an engineer someone who doesn't know equations or doesn't do math?.. music has two sides for me, one is the emotional side and one is the scientific side. in fact, music was part of the quadrivium, along with arithmetic, geometry and astronomy. Some might argue that it's not a real science because it doesn't meet all the requirements for it. Some go to the extreme of saying that mathematics is not a science, so I can't take all those premises seriously.
 
 The problem many people seem to have here is that they take an idea from a post and already jump to conclusions. Being a professional musician doesn't make anyone smarter or dumber, if one has natural ability he should be respected for that as well, like Buddy Rich (by far my all-time favourite drummer)


Edited by Chus - March 12 2007 at 15:43
Jesus Gabriel
Back to Top
progismylife View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2006
Location: ibreathehelium
Status: Offline
Points: 15535
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 12 2007 at 15:45
Prog is not for musicians only. Playing an instrument can help you understand some stuff and appreciate in a different way but does not mean you cannot appreciate the music because you don't know how to play that certain riff or whatever. Many of my prog friends appreciated the music first, then learned (or partially learned) to play an instrument and then they started appreciating the music in a different way. But their outlook on prog never changed.
Back to Top
Sasquamo View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 26 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 828
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 12 2007 at 16:19
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by Sasquamo Sasquamo wrote:


Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by Chus Chus wrote:

Originally posted by con safo con safo wrote:

okJimi Hendrix was not a musician?

 

 GREAT guitar player and bluesman, but I wouldn't know if he had enough understanding of music theory to be called musician per se.

 





   

He's right, you know.  I doubt he knew a whole lot if anything about music.



...and neither will you if you maintain this point of view for a few more years. In fact, Hendrix probably knew more about music in general than most classical players.. he's what's called a natural-- it's not about how much he does or does not 'know' because he could play anything if he wanted to; Jazz? No problem, and he'd probably blow away some of the best jazz guitarists. Classical? Give him a few days, he'd probably write a Concerto in Heavy Blues. Didn't read music? You assume that means he couldn't or wouldn't. And we don't know if that is entirely true, he may have been learning to read before he died.


So ignorant...  People idolize a player and think he can do anything.  Not true.  Jazz just requires knowledge of theory.  Period.  All the highly esteemed jazz musicians know their chords and scales.  It's just how it works.  And composing a classical piece...well that's just a different story.

Anyway, I concede, anyone who plays an instrument is a musician by definition, but still applies that playing an instrument and being famous doesn't automatically make you a "professional" musician.
Back to Top
BroSpence View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 05 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2614
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 12 2007 at 17:22
Originally posted by Sasquamo Sasquamo wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by Sasquamo Sasquamo wrote:


Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by Chus Chus wrote:

Originally posted by con safo con safo wrote:

okJimi Hendrix was not a musician?

 

 GREAT guitar player and bluesman, but I wouldn't know if he had enough understanding of music theory to be called musician per se.

 





   

He's right, you know.  I doubt he knew a whole lot if anything about music.



...and neither will you if you maintain this point of view for a few more years. In fact, Hendrix probably knew more about music in general than most classical players.. he's what's called a natural-- it's not about how much he does or does not 'know' because he could play anything if he wanted to; Jazz? No problem, and he'd probably blow away some of the best jazz guitarists. Classical? Give him a few days, he'd probably write a Concerto in Heavy Blues. Didn't read music? You assume that means he couldn't or wouldn't. And we don't know if that is entirely true, he may have been learning to read before he died.


So ignorant...  People idolize a player and think he can do anything.  Not true.  Jazz just requires knowledge of theory.  Period.  All the highly esteemed jazz musicians know their chords and scales.  It's just how it works.  And composing a classical piece...well that's just a different story.

Anyway, I concede, anyone who plays an instrument is a musician by definition, but still applies that playing an instrument and being famous doesn't automatically make you a "professional" musician.



I'm pretty sure Hendrix knew some theory, he just didn't know how to read and write music.  The guy knew how to play guitar and could fit well in a Jazz setting.  As I said before Miles Davis was going to work with him.    I disagree with the previous statement about Hendrix being able to play classical guitar or write a concerto, not to say he couldn't, but he would need to learn a little before diving right in. 

One more thing to note about the glories of Hendrix was that he didn't think of himself as the greatest guitarist in the world.  In fact, he was rather fond of Phil Keaggy (sp?). 

There was also the wonderful John McLaguhlin who was inspired by Hendrix and can do pretty much anything he wants.  He did write a concerto, can play classical guitar, jazz guitar, and indian classical.  That's a whole other post to talk about though.
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 12 2007 at 20:26
You can "know" theory without having studied it. Some people just have an ear for it. They know intuitively what works and what doesn't. Such was the case with Hendrix and many of the early jazz masters.
Back to Top
MusicForSpeedin View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 613
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 12 2007 at 20:43
This might not have anything to do with this...but Thelonious Monks mind and Art Tatums ability = the greatest pianist that would ever live.
 
Seriously.Cool
 
Louis Armstrong didn't know how to read music...but as Miles Davis said, there is nothing you can do on that horn that sachmo hasn't done already.


Edited by MusicForSpeedin - March 12 2007 at 20:46
Back to Top
mrgd View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 02 2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 822
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 12 2007 at 22:23
I believe as others have mentioned, that if you don't have an 'ear' or a 'feel' for music you don't reach that higher level as a player, writer, singer or even performer. Knowing all the theory under the sun and possessing pyrotechnical skills 'don't mean a thing if you aint got that swing'.

There's been a lot of talk about instrumental players , but very little so far about vocalists . Natural phrasing and the feel for the song, it's lyrics and it's emotion and the ability to get it across to your audience cannot be written on a score like rhythm/timing and note for note technicality can. It's all in the interpretation .

There are just so many examples of great singers who could not sight read to save themselves to mention here. The same applies to some extent to instrumentalists as has been discussed.

Jazz provides a great platform for the display of technical abilities through solo improvisation, time signatures and rhythm changes and vocals to mention a few . Fusion allows different elements to be introduced , especially electric and electronic instruments. Big band jazz is more technically structured and orchestrated with less emphasis on improv. except in the soloing. Progressive music though can incorporate all or any of such elements in different adaptations and often does - that's what's so interesting about it.

But if you are a musician , learning or already accomplished , it still comes down to a combination of all these elements imo i.e theory, technical proficiency through practise, ear and feel. Some of it is acquired through hard work and some of it some are lucky enough to be born with. Any one of these qualities may help you to 'get' prog and I personally believe it does. But musical appreciation is relative and a personal thing .

Therefore, although I have my own take on it, I'm not about to tell anyone else who may not be a musician or have some musical background that their quality of appreciation is some how deficient compared to mine or anyone else's for that matter . I'm sure we all have friends who are not from this background who enjoy their prog just as much as anyone else. But my musical background helps me to appreciate it in my own way in the same way as I appreciate jazz , classical, latin, musical theatre or whatever.

It also allows me to draw the line at Country and Western [as distinct from Country rock], for which, personally speaking, I have a very low level of tolerance. It's one area of music where talent in these elements I have referred to can count for very little because you don't always need it to succeed. Hey, but people love it and it's their prerogative so who am I to say . Some people like this [ but not all I know ]are making sh#tloads out of it, so good luck to them. In this case musical appreciation helps me to decide that it aint for me.
Looking still the same after all these years...
mrgd
Back to Top
Trademark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 13 2007 at 13:17
"They know intuitively what works and what doesn't."

This statement does not equal music theory, it equals musical intuition which is not at all the same thing. And no, you cannot know music theory without having studied it. Sorry, but you have obviously NOT studied it or you would not make this statement.

For many of my theory students, that type of wishful thinking gets them a D.

Edited by Trademark - March 13 2007 at 13:23
Back to Top
Barla View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: April 13 2006
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 4309
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 13 2007 at 13:27
No, of course prog is not for musicians only!! Where the hell did that come from? Being this kind of music pretty complex and the prescence of virtuosism does not mean just musicians can listen and enjoy it!
Back to Top
Chus View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: Venezuela
Status: Offline
Points: 1991
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 13 2007 at 13:49
Originally posted by Trademark Trademark wrote:

"They know intuitively what works and what doesn't."

This does not equal music theory and no, you cannot know music theory without having studied it. Sorry, but you have obviously NOT studied it or you would not make this statement.

For many of my theory students, that type of wishful thinking gets them a D.
 
 Hello again trademark, you might remember me in a thread that had a similar discussion, though not the similar subject, if I remember it was called "can music be bad" or something of that sort.
 
 In that thread we discussed how music can have an objective side and a subjective one, emotional and scientific IMO. I believe that same criteria can be brought up here (seeing as how the thread has evolved); I mentioned the difference between an amateur musician and a professional musician, not with the purpose of in any way degrade those with natural talent and musical ear, but for the mere classification of people who have expertise in understanding musical theory (meaning either composing, arranging and performing with the aid of musical notation) versus those who just love to play the music they feel sounds good to them, without knowledge whatsoever about theory. An example of someone who's not a professional musician but has a natural musical ear is the aforementioned Hendrix, and I can cite some people that are grand names in the jazz, prog and even classical reign (classical as in the genre). I could name one of my favourite genres, which is flamenco, which doesn't use much theory, meaning that originally players of that genre do not know about theory (some do, however), thus IMO, they're not professional musicians but professional flamenco players and "natural" musicians (don't want to say amateur much, because it seems that people are a bit sensitive over those adjectives).
Jesus Gabriel
Back to Top
Trademark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 13 2007 at 17:15

Yes, I remember the thread Chus, Can't remember how it ended though.

I understand and quite agreee with your notion of professionalism when it comes to music. Likewise, I also don't believe that lack of theoretical knowledge automatically equaltes to bad music or inferior musicians. But I do believe strongly that studying theory enhances both the playing and the listening exerience.

Part of the issue that has arisen is due to the terminology. In the US the words professional and amateur have very strong cultural definitions regarding being paid for one's efforts (amateurs work for free while professionals are paid). I think that "natural" and "classically trained" might be more accepted terms.

Both classes of musician have their limitations and the ideal musician is someone who manages to combine the two. In the music school where I teach, students are often dumbfounded by my ability to pick out melodies by ear. They have years of training and can play the crap out of their instrument, but can't pick Mary Had A Little lamb out at the keyboard without the music.

Similarly, guys I play with in rock bands etc. are amazed at anyone who can transpose to a new key on the fly (something you learn by study, not by intuition).

So, in the long run having some natural ability and then using serious study and hard work to develop it seems to me to make the most well-rounded musician, and I think it might explain why prog is ofetn considered music for musicians. The players and writers who created this genre were classically trained more often than their pop music / Hard rock counterparts.

A basic understanding of music theory and form aren't necessary to enjoy Close to the Edge, but to someone who does have that traing the facets of the song just open up like a flower and it could not have been written without that training, it would have neded up another 20 minute Psychedlic jam instead. The sonata-allegro formal structure IS what makes that song work and the structure could not have been arrived at through intuition.

Hendrix was like this savant type of character with the guitar, but given the choice, I'd rather be Beethoven than Rain Man.

Edited by Trademark - March 13 2007 at 18:20
Back to Top
darksideof View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 22 2007
Location: Newark N.J.
Status: Offline
Points: 2318
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 13 2007 at 18:20

One that is true is that prog-music does encourage you to learn how to play an instrument. Because of Bill Buford, Neil Peart and Phil Collins I  was interested to learn who to play the drums.Smile

I Got into Progressive rock When I was 14 years old and obviously the only thing that I could play with was with myself.Big%20smile
http://darksideofcollages.blogspot.com/
http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Darksideof-Collages/
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65844
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 13 2007 at 18:20
Originally posted by Sasquamo Sasquamo wrote:

So ignorant...  People idolize a player and think he can do anything. Not true.

- Actually I don't idolize Hendrix, I simply acknowledge his natural gifts. 


Jazz just requires knowledge of theory.  Period.  All the highly esteemed jazz musicians know their chords and scales.  It's just how it works.

- They do, but it isn't required to play jazz, it just helps tremendously if you want to be a serious jazz contender and to communicate to other jazz players when jamming or recording.


And composing a classical piece...well that's just a different story.

- ...and?


Anyway, I concede, anyone who plays an instrument is a musician by definition, but still applies that playing an instrument and being famous doesn't automatically make you a "professional" musician

- Anyone who plays for compensation is professional, famous or not..


Back to Top
Xalita View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie


Joined: March 12 2007
Location: Portugal
Status: Offline
Points: 18
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 13 2007 at 19:01
tardis  don't worry i'm not a musician neither, and i don't agree with them. the T said it even if we're not musicians we love art, i may not know the structures names but does every one who loves painting must be a Dali? i think not. there is a sentence that tells it all For the love of art (for us who are not musicians) and the making (for those who are).
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Forum Guest Group
Forum Guest Group
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 13 2007 at 20:47
If I remember correctly, none of the Beatles were "trained" musicians, with Paul being the only one who could "read" music. Damn.Now  I find that their music was worthless dreck. Heck, I'd even read some early critics noting of myloxydian chords changes etc ..., not that I knew or cared, the song(s) themselves were still what they were. Knowing what type of arrangement a composition is as relevant as knowing what sort of paint an artist used.
And finally to quote old John - "It's just music, people!"
Back to Top
Chus View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: Venezuela
Status: Offline
Points: 1991
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 13 2007 at 20:58
Originally posted by Trademark Trademark wrote:


Yes, I remember the thread Chus, Can't remember how it ended though.

I understand and quite agreee with your notion of professionalism when it comes to music. Likewise, I also don't believe that lack of theoretical knowledge automatically equaltes to bad music or inferior musicians. But I do believe strongly that studying theory enhances both the playing and the listening exerience.

Part of the issue that has arisen is due to the terminology. In the US the words professional and amateur have very strong cultural definitions regarding being paid for one's efforts (amateurs work for free while professionals are paid). I think that "natural" and "classically trained" might be more accepted terms.

Both classes of musician have their limitations and the ideal musician is someone who manages to combine the two. In the music school where I teach, students are often dumbfounded by my ability to pick out melodies by ear. They have years of training and can play the crap out of their instrument, but can't pick Mary Had A Little lamb out at the keyboard without the music.

Similarly, guys I play with in rock bands etc. are amazed at anyone who can transpose to a new key on the fly (something you learn by study, not by intuition).

So, in the long run having some natural ability and then using serious study and hard work to develop it seems to me to make the most well-rounded musician, and I think it might explain why prog is ofetn considered music for musicians. The players and writers who created this genre were classically trained more often than their pop music / Hard rock counterparts.

A basic understanding of music theory and form aren't necessary to enjoy Close to the Edge, but to someone who does have that traing the facets of the song just open up like a flower and it could not have been written without that training, it would have neded up another 20 minute Psychedlic jam instead. The sonata-allegro formal structure IS what makes that song work and the structure could not have been arrived at through intuition.

Hendrix was like this savant type of character with the guitar, but given the choice, I'd rather be Beethoven than Rain Man.
 
 Interesting thoughts about Close To The Edge; that said I see music like an idiom, which not many people understand; messages are encrypted through the notes, modes, structure, etc. (since Anderson's lyrics do not do thatLOL) of course that doesn't mean that the untrained listener is not able to discern that, but having an understanding of theory IMO helps to fully appreciate that. The same with improvisation; I'm not too keen on free jazz, because it's just gibberish to my ears most of the time, even when I do enjoy certain amount of madness in my music, since not everything is consonant in life nor music, it doesn't seem to convey anything (even despite some free jazz is played by trained musicians, it's often seen as an excuse for anyone to be called a "certified" jazz musician). Improvisation is not about just throwing random notes in the air; it's true that many jazz musicians were self-trained musicians with no knowledge of theory, but when you learn your improvising methods it's like expanding your musical vocabulary, and that allows you to express yourself more substantially and with more ease.
Jesus Gabriel
Back to Top
Trademark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 14 2007 at 00:01
Here is an interesting thought about the "untrained" musician. Apart from a handful of truly otherworldly individuals, most untrained musicians learn by listening and copying what others do (and have done before them) until they have sufficient chops to "be themselves".

What we don't think about is the fact they what they are copying and learning from is all based on the practises and techniques described by music theory. The key word here is describe. Theory isn't music, it is tool used to understand and describe music.

Bach, Haydn and Mozart were using I-IV-V progressions centuries before the untrained Robert Johnson or Jimi ever thought of using them. Did they just pull that sound out of the air? Absolutely not. they used what they heard other trained musicians doing and mastered it well enough to be recognized for it.

Can music theory be used to describe Hedrix or Robert Johnson. Absolutely, yes; just as easily as it can be used to describe Mozart, Stravinsky or Milton Babbitt.

Music theory is a tool to aid in the understanding of music. It is knowledge, and the more you know, the more you can do, and use of that knowledge is one of the reasons we like Rick Wakeman, Keith Emerson, Kerry Minnear, Eddie Jobson, Martin Orford, Clive Nolan (the list goes on...) and other trained musicians better than the guy in Maroon Five or REO Speedwagon.

Edited by Trademark - March 15 2007 at 11:39
Back to Top
cuncuna View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 29 2005
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 4318
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 14 2007 at 00:03
I think Frog is for Frogs only. Now, ¿where do I left that Qrog...?
¡Beware of the Bee!
   
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 89101112>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.226 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.