Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
svd_solves_all

Jazz and Objectivism

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I'm just curious about what objectivism has to say about Jazz, if anything.

I think it can be very odd to bring esthetics into some sort of rational discussion.

I'm not an Objectivist, btw.

These booklets, from a group by Lyndon Larouche, were dropped in large quantities on the steps of the New England

Conservatory of Music, where I was a student at the time. I still have the paper copy.

It's a rather strange attempt to somehow fit music into some sort of platonic idealism.

http://wlym.com/PDF-77-85/CAM8009.pdf

Food for thought.

R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just curious about what objectivism has to say about Jazz, if anything.

Like all forms of music, jazz is an optional value which may or may not appeal to a particular Objectivist. I think I remember reading somewhere that Leonard Peikoff enjoys some form of jazz, though I don't recall the details.

I think it can be very odd to bring esthetics into some sort of rational discussion.

Why do you think this?

These booklets, from a group by Lyndon Larouche, were dropped in large quantities on the steps of the New England

Conservatory of Music, where I was a student at the time. I still have the paper copy.

It's a rather strange attempt to somehow fit music into some sort of platonic idealism.

Lyndon Larouche is a rather strange person. Living on a college campus, I've run into his cronies multiple times - usually while they're yelling inanities at passing students and generally being obnoxious. His ideas have no connection to Objectivism, other than being antithetical to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like all forms of music, jazz is an optional value which may or may not appeal to a particular Objectivist. I think I remember reading somewhere that Leonard Peikoff enjoys some form of jazz, though I don't recall the details.

Why do you think this?

Lyndon Larouche is a rather strange person. Living on a college campus, I've run into his cronies multiple times - usually while they're yelling inanities at passing students and generally being obnoxious. His ideas have no connection to Objectivism, other than being antithetical to it.

There's a whole section of the forum devoted to Aesthetics. Music is of particular interest to me. I've heard that Ayn Rand had some ideas, something about "Romantic Realism" or something like that. If you read the PDF I linked to, I think you will find a rather odd attempt to "rationalize" the superiority of classical music, particularly the three "B" - Bach Beethoven and (B)Mozart, etc.

The basic premise is that Jazz was played by blacks because they were not allowed to play in Symphony Orchestras, thus depriving them of the opportunity to play superior music.

The writing is an attempt to make a "rational" argument about the alleged superiority of one type of music over another. So, since there is a section devoted to Aesthetics in Objectivism, it seems like it might have something to say about music. I'm just curious what precisely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a whole section of the forum devoted to Aesthetics. Music is of particular interest to me. I've heard that Ayn Rand had some ideas, something about "Romantic Realism" or something like that.

"Romantic Realism" is the term Ayn Rand used to describe her own work. She used "Romantic" to describe art affirming the power of volition - i.e. of human efficacy. She considered herself a Romantic in this sense, and also a Realist because all her fiction is set in a real world context.

If you read the PDF I linked to, I think you will find a rather odd attempt to "rationalize" the superiority of classical music, particularly the three "B" - Bach Beethoven and (B)Mozart, etc.

The basic premise is that Jazz was played by blacks because they were not allowed to play in Symphony Orchestras, thus depriving them of the opportunity to play superior music. The writing is an attempt to make a "rational" argument about the alleged superiority of one type of music over another.

I agree, it's incredibly odd. Even if we grant the very dubious claim that jazz emerged historically from racism, that in no way proves its aesthetic inferiority. But the content of that PDF is irrelevant to the question of whether aesthetics is a field open to rational discourse.

So, since there is a section devoted to Aesthetics in Objectivism, it seems like it might have something to say about music. I'm just curious what precisely.

You can read the gist of what Ayn Rand had to say about music here. To my knowledge, she didn't write about jazz. As I said, genres of music are optional values, so attempting to prove, for example, that someone who prefers jazz to classical music is in some way deficient is a doomed effort.

Edited by Zoid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Romantic Realism" is the term Ayn Rand used to describe her own work. She used "Romantic" to describe art affirming the power of volition - i.e. of human efficacy. She considered herself a Romantic in this sense, and also a Realist because all her fiction is set in a real world context.

I agree, it's incredibly odd. Even if we grant the very dubious claim that jazz emerged historically from racism, that in no way proves its aesthetic inferiority. But the content of that PDF is irrelevant to the question of whether aesthetics is a field open to rational discourse.

You can read the gist of what Ayn Rand had to say about music here. To my knowledge, she didn't write about jazz. As I said, genres of music are optional values, so attempting to prove, for example, that someone who prefers jazz to classical music is in some way deficient is a doomed effort.

Interesting. This is a quote from that site, I assume quoting her:

"Until a conceptual vocabulary is discovered and defined, no objectively valid criterion of esthetic judgment is possible in the field of music . . .

No one, therefore, can claim the objective superiority of his choices over the choices of others. Where no objective proof is available, it’s every man for himself—and only for himself."

It does leave me wondering what a conceptual vocabulary means...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. This is a quote from that site, I assume quoting her:

"Until a conceptual vocabulary is discovered and defined, no objectively valid criterion of esthetic judgment is possible in the field of music . . .

No one, therefore, can claim the objective superiority of his choices over the choices of others. Where no objective proof is available, it’s every man for himself—and only for himself."

It does leave me wondering what a conceptual vocabulary means...

This is complicated, because Ayn Rand didn't did not think that Art and Music are identical. Art is supposed to concertize metaphysical value judgments, music does not do that, but used concretes to invoke evaluations, sort of like reverse art. That is my understanding of it at least.

Conceptual vocabulary means that we need some theory, tools of analysis to talk about the subject. So in novels we have things like plot, characters, theme etc.

About Lyndon Larouche: He isn't the first leftist nut job to hate Jazz, Che thought Jazz was "the music of imperialism" but that is about as valid as saying Rock is "the music of the devil".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jazz is a huge genre, maybe you could say the term is a floating abstraction, even.

Some jazz I think is brilliant, but other jazz I find suspicious. Like in the same way I find a lot of 'modern art' suspicious. Like I don't enjoy it, I'm not sure if I even 'get' it, and I'm not sure if the emperor is wearing any clothes.

Jazz puts an emphasis on sponteneity/improvisation (usually), which you could say is problematic because it contradicts the principle of practice makes perfect. Ie. any thing they play could surely be improved through rehearsal. but then, some of their solos are so long it would actually be quite impractical to 'learn' them. but then, maybe that's the problem with a lot of jazz, too many long indulgent solos...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jazz is a huge genre, maybe you could say the term is a floating abstraction, even.

No, you couldn't. Jazz has definite, concrete referents. As with any genre, there are "borderline cases" that blur the line between jazz and other types of music, but if the existence of such cases made jazz a floating abstraction, then all genres in any form of art would be floating abstractions.

Some jazz I think is brilliant, but other jazz I find suspicious. Like in the same way I find a lot of 'modern art' suspicious. Like I don't enjoy it, I'm not sure if I even 'get' it, and I'm not sure if the emperor is wearing any clothes.

Jazz puts an emphasis on sponteneity/improvisation (usually), which you could say is problematic because it contradicts the principle of practice makes perfect. Ie. any thing they play could surely be improved through rehearsal. but then, some of their solos are so long it would actually be quite impractical to 'learn' them. but then, maybe that's the problem with a lot of jazz, too many long indulgent solos...

How does improvisation contradict the principle that skill improves with practice? This is like arguing that improvisational comedy shows are inferior to scripted comedy since the performance "surely could be improved through rehearsal." That kind of argument misses the point entirely; the improvisation is an aesthetic choice without which you would have an entirely different work of art.

Also, why are long solos a problem for jazz? You might not like them, and that's certainly understandable, but that doesn't mean they damage the aesthetics of the music.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This discussion could benefit from greater specificity.

I like jazz. Specifically, jazz piano. Even more specifically, jazz piano stemming from the ragtime tradition, as portrayed by these artists (order is chronological so that you can hear a progression in the music):

1. Scott Joplin --

You might be familiar with Scott Joplin if you have heard and enjoyed the soundtrack to the movie, "The Sting" with Paul Newman and Robert Redford. You might also have heard ragtime at Disneyland or Disneyworld, on Main Street (
).

2. Fats Waller --

3. Art Tatum --

4. Oscar Peterson -- youtube example

I like it for these reasons:

1) the artists are passionate

2) the artists are skilled

3) the music is happy and reflects a joy of living

There are many branches of the Jazz tree. I have explored other branches but keep coming back to this one.

If there are to be debates about the style or history of jazz, you really must be specific.

If you have Netflix, there is an instant jazz documentary by Ken Burns that might help you find what you like or don't like. It is an attempt to portray the full spectrum of jazz from origin to present day. The soundtrack to the documentary itself is a fair introduction, but it skips over the piano styles that I have come to enjoy.

There are also some innovations that parallel the jazz story, such as the phonograph, or the

that might be of interest.

edit -- added links

Edited by Sirius1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jazz is more than just a form of music. From the perspective of the performer, it is a philosophical path and direct connection with the creative spark. As a musician, I have been grappling with this concept for many years now, but I believe I have come to the conclusion that jazz could be considered the ultimate form of SELF expression and therefore the prime musical example of pure objectivism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as spontaneous improvisation contradicting the notion of practice makes perfect?? I couldn't be more in disagreement. In fact, spontaneous improvisation is the result of a total, complete mastery of all technical and aesthetic elements of one's instrument. Only when one has achieved this level of competence is he/she able to effectively perform the flow of consciousness necessary to be an effective soloist. Again, the point of art and culture in general should rather be from the performer's perspective, than concern over the acceptance and/or understanding of an audience. That is the only acceptable rational or objective ideal. Therefore, wether you "get it" or not should be of absolutely no concern to a jazz musician or any artist as they are engaged in the most personal pursuit of artistic expression, even when taken within a group context where (in jazz specifically) everyone is allowed to contribute as much of their own voice as they feel is appropriate. A truly American invention, which can be connected philosophically with the principles and ideals of our founders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. . . In fact, spontaneous improvisation is the result of a total, complete mastery of all technical and aesthetic elements of one's instrument. Only when one has achieved this level of competence is he/she able to effectively perform the flow of consciousness necessary to be an effective soloist. . . .

Interestingly stated observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at an artist like John Coltrane, for example, he purposely detached himself from society at the height of his musical popularity to practice 12 hours a day, until he felt he had a uninhibited connection between himself and his instrument. Therefore any idea, thought, sound he heard he would be able to effectively transfer through his instrument and ultimately into the music. Then, you add his interaction with the other members of his trio at that time, which was legendary. It was a completely "free" (as in uncensored and virtuous - stemming from virtue) exchange of ideas from the very essence of one's being. To me that resonates as the perfect Randian Ideal, but I am not certain others would agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, the point of art and culture in general should rather be from the performer's perspective, than concern over the acceptance and/or understanding of an audience. That is the only acceptable rational or objective ideal. Therefore, wether you "get it" or not should be of absolutely no concern to a jazz musician or any artist as they are engaged in the most personal pursuit of artistic expression, even when taken within a group context where (in jazz specifically) everyone is allowed to contribute as much of their own voice as they feel is appropriate. A truly American invention, which can be connected philosophically with the principles and ideals of our founders.

But isn't communication with the audience inherent in the attempt of self-expression? Any form of communication involves both the artist and the audience, and recognizing this doesn't require altering the core of what one is trying to convey, but it does require taking a generic audience into account when composing and playing. Isn't that part of learning to be a musician, is learning what notes, chords, and progressions tend to evoke what emotions in people, so that the artist can effectively communicate a tone or tap into an emotion? I'm not saying musicians should be overly concerned with whether a particular person or group of people 'gets them' or 'doesn't get them,' but they should be concerned with whether what they're trying to convey is intelligible. I could be way off here, I'm not a musician by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't think this kind of 'taking a generic human audience into account' is incompatible with being an independent-spirited musician.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think one should consider any audience when writing or performing music. Quite the opposite. If they would, there would never be any new direction in music or art for that matter, because the artists are the torchbearers and innovators. They should be concerned completely with the most important conversation and that is the internal conversation. That is also the purest of statements, and coincidentally tends to affect listeners and other performers in the deepest, most profound way.

Do you think Picasso painted with the thought of appealing to a generic public? Even the romantic masters like Beethoven were creating this way. Stravinsky was assaulted after the premier of "The Rite of Spring", and in the words of Miles Davis (who created three separate paths and styles in music) after being booed by an audience: "It took me a lifetime to understand what I am playing, can I really expect you to understand it after an hour?" By the way, his music is now standard repertoire over the world, and "Kind of Blue" is the best selling jazz album in history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of all forms of jazz, I'd say progressive is the most misunderstood. But it's incredibly personal if performed by the right artists:

I recommend a good pair of headphones and dim lighting for that one. If you don't have 8 minutes, they really start moving around 2.45. Also the video is stupid.

A lot has been said about the improvisational properties of jazz (whether it's artful or not?); but all improv is based off of progressions, melodies, and rhythms, and these are written on lead sheets. So it's not all masturbatory soloing, there's craft in the structure, and improv in the stucco. And don't let a soloist fool it; improv is VERY difficult to pull off convincingly and artfully, and it takes many years to acquire the tools to do so.

Edited by WilliamColton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an example of good jazz:

Dave Brubeck - Laura

lWFpK8WEHhk

Antonio Carlos Jobim - Wave

3d8y4HxW8Eg

John Coltrane - Dear Lord

FpoyOwKJ1A0

Thelonious Monk - Solitude

raLOXN0-jx8

Hiromi Uehara - I've got Rythm

6JfKY0K_NQk

Nikolay Kapustin

vDWeGp4UE6M

1Gi3EsgQn10

The codes are youtube IDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot has been said about the improvisational properties of jazz (whether it's artful or not?); but all improv is based off of progressions, melodies, and rhythms, and these are written on lead sheets.

Much (probably most) jazz is organized that way, but not all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares what anyone says about the music I love?

I don't.

Loving music is like loving women and vice-versa. So much wonderful stuff to choose from -- and so little time.

I love jazz, rock, blues, classical, bluegrass. I even pick guitar and howl and scream myself. Just love it.

How can anyone not love at least some every kind of music there is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But isn't communication with the audience inherent in the attempt of self-expression?

Are you familiar with the novel The Fountainhead? If not, you may want to read it.

Any form of communication involves both the artist and the audience, and recognizing this doesn't require altering the core of what one is trying to convey, but it does require taking a generic audience into account when composing and playing.

Why do you think that art must connect with a "generic" audience? Why not an elite audience whose tastes are as informed and refined as, say, Dagny's or Gail Wynand's were? If an artist lives in a country of people who were raised by intellectual "Comprachicos" who taught them to vote for and depend on leaders like, say, Obama, Reid and Pelosi, are your seriously suggesting that the artist should concern himself with what and how a "generic audience" of these dopes think, and tailor his art accordingly?!?!

Or do you have a different definition of "generic audience"? Do you mean that anything that you like and/or find meaningful is "intelligible," and anything that you don't find meaningful is meaningless, highfalutin nonsense? "Generic audience" = you and your tastes and interests?

Isn't that part of learning to be a musician, is learning what notes, chords, and progressions tend to evoke what emotions in people, so that the artist can effectively communicate a tone or tap into an emotion?

It sounds to me as if you believe that music is exactly like language, and that there is sort of established "dictionary" of note progressions and chords that composers should use and limit themselves to, and that discovering new means of expression outside of the established dictionary is somehow bad. If that's what you believe, again I'd suggest that you read The Fountainhead. It's an awesome novel. Reading it might help you to become more comfortable with the idea of aesthetic innovation and independence.

I'm not saying musicians should be overly concerned with whether a particular person or group of people 'gets them' or 'doesn't get them,' but they should be concerned with whether what they're trying to convey is intelligible. I could be way off here, I'm not a musician by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't think this kind of 'taking a generic human audience into account' is incompatible with being an independent-spirited musician.

No works of music convey objectively intelligible meanings. It's not just jazz or any other genre of music that you don't like. The music that you like is no more communicative to you than jazz is to fans of jazz. Music is not literature. As Rand said, it does not have a "conceptual vocabulary," and therefore must be treated as a subjective matter.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't act like an ass.

My intention wasn't to act like an ass. Dante's opinions make him appear to be unfamiliar with The Fountainhead and what Howard Roark thought and felt about creative independence versus classicism. If Dante hasn't read the novel, I think that he should. It'll answer a lot of his questions.

J

Edited by Jonathan13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No works of music convey objectively intelligible meanings. It's not just jazz or any other genre of music that you don't like. The music that you like is no more communicative to you than jazz is to fans of jazz. Music is not literature. As Rand said, it does not have a "conceptual vocabulary," and therefore must be treated as a subjective matter.

In reading Dante's post and your response, I have to wonder... do you think that there's nothing about music which a person could learn with regard to the typical effects of one musical choice or another?

All I read Dante as saying (though maybe there's more) is that certain music will generally produce certain effects in the listener; a musician who strives to express himself to others -- to reproduce in them the sensations or what-have-you which he feels and seeks to share -- must take that into consideration, in order to attain his goals. He must consider the audience.

Though it's been a while since I've read The Fountainhead, I seem to recall Roark designing a temple such that man would feel grand inside of it. Well, to accomplish such a thing, Roark couldn't simply throw anything up as it came to him -- he would have to give lengthy consideration to what would produce the effects he was after in those who would enter the temple. When Greek architects wanted their columns to appear straight from a distance, they had to make mathematical calculations in order to produce the desired visual effects. And aren't there parallels to this sort of thing in music? Aren't there considerations given to thematic variations and resolutions, etc., depending on what musicians think those will "communicate"? Aren't there different emotions associated (for instance) with major or minor chords, or fast or slow tempos? (Or the timbre of various instruments?)

I don't know. I'm flailing in that I don't really know much about music or architecture (as I'm sure is obvious). But while I don't believe that architecture or music can convey stories in the manner that a film or novel can, I have to believe that there are still lessons in craft that an aspiring artist in either genre could learn. And where artistic expression is concerned, that craft would have to take into consideration the audience; the recognition that certain architectural or musical choices produce certain predictable effects in a typical observer/listener.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you familiar with the novel The Fountainhead? If not, you may want to read it.

...

It sounds to me as if you believe that music is exactly like language, and that there is sort of established "dictionary" of note progressions and chords that composers should use and limit themselves to, and that discovering new means of expression outside of the established dictionary is somehow bad. If that's what you believe, again I'd suggest that you read The Fountainhead. It's an awesome novel. Reading it might help you to become more comfortable with the idea of aesthetic innovation and independence.

I've read The Fountainhead, thanks, which is why I can confidently say that though Roark spends much of the book promoting aesthetic innovation and independence from social convention, he would never dream of advocating attempting to be 'independent' of the objective principles which govern architecture. What makes him an incredible architect is the fact that his vision is oriented not towards the requirements of social convention but to the requirements of the building site, building materials, the building's purpose, etc. The fact that he understands the difference is what makes him good. Consider one of the earliest scenes from the novel, where Roark is describing the idiocy of, say, the flutings on the columns of the Parthenon. They're idiotic because their original purpose was to hide the joints in wood, and with the Parthenon they were put on a marble structure. A daring and innovative architect at that time might very well be praised for suggesting that they shouldn't have put flutings on the Parthenon; we presume someone like Roark certainly would have suggested this. However, we would not similarly praise someone who suggests removing the flutings from a wooden structure. In that case, they are there for a purpose related to the medium of construction; we would just call that person a bad architect. The difference is the presence of a purpose (hiding the joints in wood), and objective principles governing how that can and cannot be done.

Similarly, if we have a musical composer attempting to, say, create suspense with a certain passage, he is free to disregard everything done before him, but he is not free to disregard the fact that only certain things that he writes will have this effect on the audience. If he wishes to accomplish this purpose, he can't set about doing it just any way he wants; he has to have an intuitive grasp of what types of chords and progressions evoke suspense, and what kinds instead invoke sadness, or joy, or what have you. What makes a musician good, creative, independent, etc is the fact that he (intuitively) understands these principles and can use them to create completely original work that has the intended effect on the listener.

DonAthos' example above is in the same vein. If you want to create a building that makes the person who comes in feel grand and important, there are certain principles you must follow. If instead, you want to make him feel small and insignificant, there are other principles you need to adhere to (to see these principles in action, all you usually have to do is go visit the nearest church). If you want to have this effect but disregard the corresponding principles, you're not being innovative and original; you're a bad architect.

Incidentally, Rand also throws a few examples of this into The Fountainhead to contrast with Roark; remember Lois Cook, the supposedly brilliant writer who disregards not just social convention, but also any and all principles of literary composition, and ends up with passages like "toothbrush in the jaw toothbrush brush brush tooth jaw foam dome in the foam Roman dome come home home in the jaw Roman dome tooth toothbrush toothpick pickpocket socket rocket..."? The reader of TF can easily tell the difference between Roark, who disregards all social convention but pays the most rigorous and exacting attention to the requirements of the building site, the materials, the building's purpose, etc and Cook, who disregards absolutely everything and writes garbage.

Why do you think that art must connect with a "generic" audience? Why not an elite audience whose tastes are as informed and refined as, say, Dagny's or Gail Wynand's were? If an artist lives in a country of people who were raised by intellectual "Comprachicos" who taught them to vote for and depend on leaders like, say, Obama, Reid and Pelosi, are your seriously suggesting that the artist should concern himself with what and how a "generic audience" of these dopes think, and tailor his art accordingly?!?!

Or do you have a different definition of "generic audience"? Do you mean that anything that you like and/or find meaningful is "intelligible," and anything that you don't find meaningful is meaningless, highfalutin nonsense? "Generic audience" = you and your tastes and interests?

Yeah, cause those are the only two possible meanings I could have had.

No works of music convey objectively intelligible meanings. It's not just jazz or any other genre of music that you don't like. The music that you like is no more communicative to you than jazz is to fans of jazz. Music is not literature. As Rand said, it does not have a "conceptual vocabulary," and therefore must be treated as a subjective matter.

...I like jazz, despite your presumptions. My post was not intended to 'diss' jazz or music that I don't like, as you seem determined to interpret it. Part of what makes a jazz musician good is the ability to convey and invoke specific emotions in the listener, which requires a good intuitive grasp of exactly the kinds of principles I'm talking about. In an improvisational setting like jazz it's even more impressive to see it done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In reading Dante's post and your response, I have to wonder... do you think that there's nothing about music which a person could learn with regard to the typical effects of one musical choice or another?

All I read Dante as saying (though maybe there's more) is that certain music will generally produce certain effects in the listener; a musician who strives to express himself to others -- to reproduce in them the sensations or what-have-you which he feels and seeks to share -- must take that into consideration, in order to attain his goals. He must consider the audience.

And that's the conclusion that I reject. An artist need not go around polling the "generic" folks next door to see how his art affects them.

Though it's been a while since I've read The Fountainhead, I seem to recall Roark designing a temple such that man would feel grand inside of it.

Which men would feel grand inside Roark's temple? All men? Should Roark have concerned himself with polling lots of people and then redesigning his temple if he discovered that his design didn't make a certain percentage of men feel what he intended them to feel?

Well, to accomplish such a thing, Roark couldn't simply throw anything up as it came to him -- he would have to give lengthy consideration to what would produce the effects he was after in those who would enter the temple.

Why couldn't he instead give lengthy consideration to which arrangements of form would produce in him the effects that he was after?

When Greek architects wanted their columns to appear straight from a distance, they had to make mathematical calculations in order to produce the desired visual effects.

Did the Greek architects then poll a "generic audience" about what they thought of the visual effects?

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...