BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Radio & Music >

Sell Out?!!!

  
  

Page: (1)23456... 8

 
 
haus of fraser
10:52 / 09.09.05
Ok so in a vague attempt to get some passionate talking in the music forum i thought i'd bring up an age old debate- I know its been touched upon many times before in various threads- butnow its time to be played out in its own thread.

Why is some music a sell out? What music is selling out? what music leaves you cold or do you despise- why are MOR bands like Keane, Coldplay or Jamie Cullum so widely disliked?

Why is the Mercury prize corporate whoredom at is best (Our Fifty-First Century Lady)- I admit this response was part of the reason for writing this thread- because its a term along with 'sell out' that gets used a lot to describe commercial music- but i'm not sure what it means.

Is Jack White a sell out as recent reports say he's writing a tune for a Coke ad- despite the fact that he writes his own music- supports underground labels and bands etc?

why do we critisise musicians for taking corporate dollars- using there precious music in a TV commercial!

Most (not all) musicians do not make fortunes- even the successful ones- i work with the spouse of a moderately successful musician. ze's the singer/ songwriter of a band that sell out Brixton academy/ headline second stage at Glastonbury. Ze earnt £16 grand last year - not peanuts but not what you would expect if i told you ze's name (i really won't). my work collegue is the main bread winner- so get offered a Levi's soundtrack, 10 grand in the bank and the possibility of selling some records off the back of it- who would really say no?

Its a lot easier to call someone a sell out if you don't have to deal with the practicalities of making a living through music- Once a road crew/ tour team/ Management /agents/ runners/ accountant/ taxman is paid what.

Do we get angry about this because music is so personal to each and every one of us- how dare you use 'my' music in a commercial

Why do people hate Pop Idol/ Pop Stars winners with such venom?

My own thoughts on the subject tend to revolve around marketing and my dislike for music made by committees- i think one of the reasons that the Girls aloud thread got so heated was because of an inherent distrust of a pop group made by ITV execs- no matter how good the songs are and how talented the singers i don't like the idea that the record was made by a committee with the sole aim of making more money.

I've got work to do know, but you get the idea. Let it rip- i'm sure most people here have feelings on the subject...
 
 
autopilot disengaged
11:07 / 09.09.05
uh, well - traditionally 'selling out' has entailed putting money above art. obviously, there's a lot to discuss within that, but as a fundamental equation...
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
11:41 / 09.09.05
Can't really be bothered with this topic again: surely what the music forum suffers from a lack of is people talking about music itself, y'know, what it sounds like to them and how it makes them feel?

Briefly:

Why is some music a sell out? It's not. What music is selling out? None. What music leaves you cold or do you despise? This is an entirely different question. Why are MOR bands like Keane, Coldplay or Jamie Cullum so widely disliked? For a wide variety of reasons, some but not all to do with their prominent public profile.

(The only caveat I'd add to the above is that when artists position themselves as counter-cultural, radical, anti-establishment and so on whilst making money out of their songs being used in advertisements, that might be worth pointing out.)

Why do people hate Pop Idol/ Pop Stars winners with such venom? For a slightly less wide variety of reasons, some but not all to do with cultural and class snobbery.

no matter how good the songs are and how talented the singers i don't like the idea that the record was made by a committee with the sole aim of making more money.

The problem here is that that idea is not a proven one. I've yet to see any real evidence that even the first Girls Aloud album was "made by a committee with the sole aim of making more money" any more than the next record by an act signed to a major label.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
12:22 / 09.09.05
I don't think 'sell-out' refers to music, but the people behind it - splitting hairs, but there is a difference -Mr. Shaftoe's point about advertising, above.

I think the term is bollocks as well, if anything it's a marketing tool for certain artistes who wish to elevate their sales to the heights of those they level the accusation at.

It's also a useful term for long and opinionated threads, I suppose.
 
 
Char Aina
12:41 / 09.09.05
to me selling ouyt has always suggested a move towards something you dont hold dear on the basis that it will get you money and fame.
that something you hold dear can really be anything, so long as it is seen as part of the core of your initial identity as a purveyor of stuff.

if minor threat took a bunch of drugs resulting in a story on the cover of rolling stone, leaving behind all those kids to whom they taught the virtues of staying clean, that could be considered selling out. keith richards doing it isnt.
sleater kinney suddenly deciding they need to do a video in gold hotpants might be considered selling out. kylie doing it isnt.

so yeah.
its money over core beliefs.
if one of your core beliefs is the pursuit of money or is something that helps you get loads of money, i dont think you can sell out.
 
 
MacDara
12:44 / 09.09.05
The problem with the term 'selling out' is that most artists are out there to make money from their art. It's not 'all about the music, man': there are bills to pay and mouths to feed. That's a given.

So now that the main money question is out of the way, I would normally define 'selling out' in the musical sense as purposefully compromising one's art and commercialising one's sound (cleaning it up, hiring a stylist, all of that jazz) to appeal to broader markets, the impetus of which is purely profit-based.

Other than that, there is no selling out. Many artists never bought in in the first place, after all.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
12:46 / 09.09.05
sleater kinney suddenly deciding they need to do a video in gold hotpants might be considered selling out.

It might be considered selling out by some, but it might well jeopardise their appeal to their current fans without winning any new ones. In other words, it would in fact be a brave, risky move in a very unexpected direction.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
13:02 / 09.09.05
What about Destiny's Child advertising / being sponsored by McDonalds? It's not as though they needed the money, and the affiliation is a bit tacky, but why not? It's their business.

'Selling out' = 'Being greedy'?
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
13:05 / 09.09.05
to me selling ouyt has always suggested a move towards something you dont hold dear on the basis that it will get you money and fame.

But that is always pejorative. Why is that?
 
 
haus of fraser
13:45 / 09.09.05
The only caveat I'd add to the above is that when artists position themselves as counter-cultural, radical, anti-establishment and so on whilst making money out of their songs being used in advertisements, that might be worth pointing out.

Often, i'd argue the result of youthful idealism over the reality of paying the bills as you get older- a tour may cost as much to run as it takes- hence the handy sponsorship helps make the profit and pay your wages.

Although is it equally depressing when Justin Timberlake takes another squillion from McDonalds that he doesn't need for the ' do do do do ...i'm lovin it?' jingle? Does it reflect on how you view him or whether you would want to buy his record? would you feel less guilt about downloading his track from a filesharer?

should sponsorship alleviate the record industry and subsidise our pop stars as the download revolution steals the songs and the computer game/ DVD market competes for its money?

In the USA bands regularly use product placement to bump up budgets on music videos- its actually illegal in this country to take money for the placement- although it can prove handy when looking for an expensive car prop etc. should the law change- is it patronising/ annoying when logos are blurred on american TV shows?

The clearest notion of a sellout IMHO is the novelty record ie Crazy Frog and his wacky pals. The notion of making a buck from a craze; but then where does that leave 'Kung Foo Fighting' or 'Surfin USA'- with the added grace of hindsight- sell outs or a fun piece of opportunism with a great hook?

I guess i've started this thread with a few too many seperate themes bouncing around it- but its a worthy discussion- Is there a line to be drawn where pop music becomes a product?

I'm sure the reason we have snobbery around music is because its something we love and set our own values for- nobody will be right or wrong in this arguement.

IMHO 'selling Out' is not even the money thing- maybe the sell out thing is a clamour for fame/ popularity/ greed that is quite clearly a motivating factor when considering the reality shows- why is a member of a pop idol type band a sell-out- cos they'd be just as happy with Fern Cottons Job %'cos there you're on the telly & still famous?'%

The reality of making a living vs precious art.... %teh torture of kurt cobain... %
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:08 / 09.09.05
The clearest notion of a sellout IMHO is the novelty record ie Crazy Frog and his wacky pals.

If, as has been put forward by toksik and others, selling out is about making a different kind of music, or presenting oneself in a different way - one that is established to be more likely to reap commercial rewards - to the way in which one originally intended or began, then surely the Crazy Frog is in no way a sell-out. All the Crazy Frog records to date are the same kind of music as the first, and there was no commercially established precedent for the success of a cartoon frog with a penis going "bing bing bing bing BING BING!" over some old dance records.

Is there a line to be drawn where pop music becomes a product?

Pop music becomes a product when you pay money for it: that's capitalism. I'm not convinced that there is a question of degree here, and I'm certainly not convinced that the genre, or even quality, of a given record makes it more or less a product.
 
 
Char Aina
14:58 / 09.09.05

But that is always pejorative. Why is that?


it usually suggests a move away from that which you do hold dear.
ideals are seen by many as more important than money, so letting money win in a battle of ideals versus cash seems to many to be weakness or greed.
its about honesty, i feel.
its about telling everyone one thing and not sticking to your guns because it is easier and more lucrative not to.
flip flopping; folk hate it in most walks of life.

this, to me, is why to call the frog a sellout makes no sense.
who or what is he selling out?
the current phase of rintone selling is not one of compromised ideals or principle.

the latest ringtone advert i saw was something i could have made at home using flash. it lasted an entire ad break and plugged tone after tone, wallpaper after wallpaper back to back and for about three minutes.
it was designed to be as cheap as possible while still getting the message across, and then placed in the middle of a program on a well known cable channel.

seems to me like pure and simple capitalism.



Does it reflect on how you view him or whether you would want to buy his record? would you feel less guilt about downloading his track from a filesharer?

yes and no.
i dont want to buy a justin record as much as i would a lapsus linguae record because i dont know him, i know he doesnt need the money, and his thinking is in many ways not in line with my own.
his choices ragrding sponsorship and endorsemnt will not affect how well i know him, but it does affect my perception of how much he needs my money and how much he thinks like me.
i might feel lesss guilt about downloading his song knowing he will not be in any real way inconvenienced by it and knowing that he would willingly use his influence to suppoort a buncha cunts like mcronalds.

it doesnt make him a sellout, though.
making money and achieving fame seem to have been massively important to him all through his career, so he has compromised nothing.
i cant hold him to account for forsaking ideals he doesnt have.

kinda like crazy frog.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
23:03 / 09.09.05
Can't really be bothered with this topic again

That wasn't strictly true, was it?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
23:37 / 09.09.05
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
04:22 / 10.09.05
At the risk of starting a flame-war of biblical proportions...
Who has sold out? Which artists, past or present, have sold out? That would probably help this thread much more than talking purely in abstract.
Oh, and if you wish to dispute anyone saying that your favorite has sold out, please do so entirely IN CAPS, remembering to question their sexuality and threaten them with physical harm.
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
04:33 / 10.09.05
Well, the whole concept of the 'sell-out' is firstly predicated on the perspective of the accuser. That in turn being predicated on some idea of that artist having been positioned as being in some way antithetical to the business of making money from music, and then positioning him or itself as being entirely based around making money from establishing a different position, or around a similar position based on exploiting the above for profit.

But since the concept is based around the perspective of the accuser, it says more about the accuser than it does the accused. As indeed most music-writing says more about the writer than about the music being discussed, which is most of the point of any music criticism in the first place - to say something about the writer, to describe the writer him or herself rather than the music in question.
 
 
haus of fraser
11:50 / 10.09.05
In return to the question who has sold out, well curently there is a lot of critical talk of The WHITE STRIPES selling out- as they are currently writing the theme for Coke- having previously turned down (an alleged) $1 million for a GAP ad? Selling out- or growing up.

Also in the MERCURY MUSIC PRIZE thread Our Ladys stated that ze thought it was Corporate Whoredom at its best which i interpreted to mean a 'sell out' or a very similar thing? Does this now make Antony & The Johnsons sell outs for participating? Don't forget the Gorillaz turned down their nomination a couple of years back- are they less of a sell out? or are they in fact more canny corporate whores- an aging rock star who doesn't have to be in videos/ photos cos the band are cartoons- giving a lease of life/ longevity that Blur no longer had?

Is a corporate whore a sell out? does the term not really mean anything- is it a way of adolescents to define gangs and group boundrys in the great %pop vs rock war%.

Are we more forgiving sporting stars accepting sponsorship a la Beckham etc than our pop stars beyonce/ timberlake & McDonalds- why is it less acceptable?
 
 
Char Aina
19:57 / 10.09.05
why is it less acceptable?
football is less likely to be percieved as an exercise in sticking it to the man.
rock and roll is all about the man-sticking.
 
 
edshift
20:45 / 10.09.05
First Post so be gentle.

OK.
This is an interesting topic and one that i've ruminated on endlessly. My considered opinion is that the artist has to take a balanced view of both the material getting whored out and the Damage done/socio-political motives/target audience of the organisation doing the pimping.

Example: It would fundamentally wrong for a person/group that has chosen fair trade as an adopted cause (sub E.G.-coldplay) to then authorise a song for use by some major capitalist evildoer. (sub-E.G. NIKE, ESSO, McDonalds Etc...) However. There is another angle to all of this.

There is NO POINT in preaching to the converted. We enlightened ones listen to our militant or rock solid good vibed music and it blesses and confirms our ideals. That's totally valid and it really is absolutely essential to feel confirmed and constantly reminded why we feel that way BUT there has to be an evangelical angle to this.

OK.
Most of the really amazing underground music I got into was by word of mouth in nightclubs from friends or at festivals etc. but I had to be in a position to recieve that wisdom. I might not be at that festival if I hadn't heard such and such a band on an advert and thought "That was GREAT" I wonder who that was. Retired to the Net and done some research. That initial seed might be the thing that makes me donwload or buy the rest of the album, go to glasto to see the artist and absorb lots of other proper good stuff as well.

Eat Static who are about as Proper Underground as you can realistically hope to be while almost having a top 40 album put a sample from terrence McKenna on the opening of thir first proper album :
"We're not dropping out here, We're infilitrating and taking over."

I firmly believe this is the only attitude to have in this modern media saturated age. We can choose to get precious about our values and rejection of capitalism but we'll end up isolated and dwindling as we die old and unheard.

The media needs to be infiltrated. We need to think in terms of the connections people will make from a great tune by a cool artist on an advert for whatever. I for one will remember the tune long before I go out and buy the product.

Best regards.
Ed. (Musician)
Tunes sold to adverts : 0 (so far...)
;-)
 
 
The Falcon
23:54 / 11.09.05
I'd nominate Moby as a sell-out, and thief, in the worst pejorative sense.

However, I also dislike him and his craft intensely, so that might be it.
 
 
PatrickMM
02:20 / 12.09.05
I find it ironic that music is the medium where people are most criticized for selling out, and yet I'd argue it's the most difficult to actually sell out in. In films, it's obvious when someone moves from rambling indie style narratives to a tightly structured three act screenplay, with no real personal connection.

But Death Cab for Cutie signs with a major and releases an album that sounds just like what they've already done, except this time it gets a lot more promotion and hype. Have they sold out? Or consider someone like Liz Phair who went to a much more poppy, hook based sound, has she sold out, or was this an artistic exploration?

So, I don't really find the idea of selling out valid, though clearly some groups find it hard to deal with popularity and end up only putting out one good album then falling apart.

However, I will say that I think it's bad practice to license your song for a long running commercial. Led Zeppelin's 'Rock and Roll' is forever associated with Cadillac in my mind now, and I didn't even know The Who's 'Bargain' was a real song until I saw them on Live 8, it's always run on these dinky local Chevrolet commercials, and I'd just assumed it was a jingle they made up. I'd say techno artists can get away with licensing their songs, but rock bands, don't do it.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
15:34 / 12.09.05
it usually suggests a move away from that which you do hold dear.
ideals are seen by many as more important than money, so letting money win in a battle of ideals versus cash seems to many to be weakness or greed.

To many what or whom?

And I would hazard that it only 'suggests a move away' to people who are on the receiving end of the result, and rarely, if ever, to those who are making the stuff : musicians (grown up one's anyway).

This whole notion that 'integrity' and 'principle' are at the heart of all musicians is hokum. Musicians hung up on 'integrity' are the ones who play on the Tube - see? Audience gives money to musician.

Or, alternatively, the session circuit. In it for the music. Pay me for the gig.

Any musician who goes into a lab to record and distribute their music is looking to earn money through the consumer chain, and is thus part of TEH SYSTEM! That same evil, nasty system which doesn't gove a toss for your 'ideals' and is interested principally (though not solely) in the bottom line. It's a useful marketing coup to harp on about how REAL! you are, and how FAKE! all the other dudes doing exactly the same thing as you are, but this is just a way of advertising - you know, like selling the sizzle, not the sausage. (Haha!)

In what way is an artist doing a few spin off money-runners to buy a nice gaff and a flash motor and get a great studio together in order to retire and spend the rest of their days fretwanking endlessly in some anal self-indulgent 'ideal' a sell-out? Not for the first time today, it's a question of 'Work smart! Not hard!'

Course, it never actually works this way, because guess what? Making music that people want to listen to is really fucking hard, whether it's Euro pop, Death Metal, RockabillyTechnoDrum'n'Opera or Tom Waits.

If that isn't true, then where's your tune? Who wouldn't have a couple of number 1's under a pseudonym, do the whole Thomas Bangalter in a Crash Helmet promotional schtick, then emerge, rich and up your own arse with a CD full of 'ideals' and not give a toss what the sales were like?

In fact, that pretty accurately describes the Neptunes little N.E.R.D endeavour (minus the crash helmets). A pocket load of hits for pop stars, followed by an indulgent non-starter for pleasure and sod the bottom line. But, wait a minute - those were 'credible' hits, right? Nothing like the Crazy Frog at all at all?

False. Dichotmoy.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
15:36 / 12.09.05
I'd nominate Moby as a sell-out, and thief, in the worst pejorative sense

Leaving aside the fact you don't dig the music, care to explain?

(Please don't cite the use of his music on numerous ads).

You're going to, aren't you?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
16:21 / 12.09.05
As edshift (and welcome, btw) says, a lot has to do with your stated goals.

You can only "sell out", to my way of thinking, through hypocrisy. It's only my own personal yardstick, but then, as we've already seen in this thread, that's all any of us really have to go on in this argument.

I have nothing against people doing adverts, or whatever, as long as they're not claiming it's the kind of thing they don't do. Sting, for example. While loudly trumpeting environmentalism, did a car advert (I forget which car- unless they're old-style Beetles, they all look the same to me) but justified this by giving his fee to environmental charities. Like the money makes much difference to him, anyway, and like the donation means shit compared to the pollution caused by the things he's promoting...

(See also, Paul McCartney, Pipes Of Peace video, trashing a whole bunch of countryside for the video yet still somehow famed for his environmentalism. Or Chris Martin- look, dude. You may not care about EMI's shareholders, and neither do I. But then, I never signed the contract. And if it DID make that much of a difference to the company that your album was late, and they started firing people at the bottom level... well then, who's the cunt there?)

Personally, I don't really see the whole "selling out" thing as being unique to music, or indeed to art in any form. Lying pisses me off when it's done by a guy in the pub as much as it does when it's done by a guy on a stage.

I also find it a bit weird when people stop liking a band purely because they've become popular/are making lots of money. Personally, when I hear a band I like, I would love for them to be showered in riches and all the earthly pleasures they could imagine, for doing such a wonderful thing in the first place. If their albums become crap afterwards, I'll be bitterly disappointed, but nobody's making me buy them.
 
 
Char Aina
16:26 / 12.09.05

In what way is an artist doing a few spin off money-runners to buy a nice gaff and a flash motor and get a great studio together in order to retire and spend the rest of their days fretwanking endlessly in some anal self-indulgent 'ideal' a sell-out?

its not.
its only a sell out if they do all that and a necessary part of same is betraying their ideals or principles.
people definitely attach their own ideals to some music, but its only really a betrayal if the thinking was there in the first place.

conflict deciding to take lucrative sponsorship from coca cola or mcdonalds could be considered selling out. beyonce taking the same wouldnt.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
17:57 / 12.09.05
BUGGER!

That was gonna be my killer example, toksik- CONFLICT. Were Conflict to sign to EMI, what with the "Only stupid bastards help EMI" stuff (or likewise were NMA to become smackheads) etc.
 
 
Tom Paine's Bones
21:33 / 13.09.05
Interesting one because I would say Chumbawumba qualify.

Simply because after throwing paint over NMA for signing to EMI and constantly attacking bands who did so in interviews, they then signed to a major label themselves.

I don't think that any band that presents themselves as anti-capitalist signing to a major in and of itself constitutes selling out. I do think bands that promote themselves through politics do have more of a responsibility to show that by doing so they can advance the 'cause' in a more effective way- Blaggers ITA seem to me to have done that very well.
 
 
The Falcon
02:45 / 14.09.05
Leaving aside the fact you don't dig the music, care to explain?

(Please don't cite the use of his music on numerous ads).

You're going to, aren't you?

Well, except I didn't. But it's the thievery of the delta blues stuff and adding of compleeeetely fucking lame, spiritless electro bits, then selling it as your new album bit that really pisses me off.

And then having cars advertised with it.

I don't think I can mangle that into sell-out syntax, but it is definitely becoming of TEH MAN. Moby is so fucking full of shit.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
06:03 / 14.09.05
Yeah, Chumbawamba are a pretty damn good example of going the other way... justifying their signing to EMI as giving them a chance to have a higher profile and therefore a better platform for the cause, and then... they chuck a glass of water at Prescott. Big fucking deal. Were Conflict to try the same bollocks, I'd be disgusted (it'd piss me off a lot more as well because they're clearly a million times better, too).
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
06:05 / 14.09.05
Oh, and I've just remembered the other funny thing about Chumbawamba's EMI hypocrisy- they signed at about the same time NMA were dropped. I so wished NMA would start selling the Only Stupid Bastards Help EMI T-shirts at their gigs at that point, childish though it would have been.
 
 
ZF!
07:36 / 14.09.05
I don't believe that bands that write their own music, and try to progress their music, are selling out, even if they do become hugely popular. R.E.M. or perhaps even RHCP come to mind, not my favourite bands, I don't own even one of their albums, but I can respect and appreciate what they're doing.

However if they are just a boy/girl band, who just sing a song written for them, and are part of the corporate machine, then they ARE sell outs period. Maybe they've got talent, and instead of doing something creative they just take the easy road out.

Then there are those people that are just c*nts and even if they are talented (though most often not) and make good music I can't stand them and therefore their music, and I'll boycott them regardless. Bono, Pete Doherty, Chris Martin and the Gallaghers come to mind. Gooit ptuuii!

I also find it a bit weird when people stop liking a band purely because they've become popular/are making lots of money.

Sure if I hear a band that I think is fantastic, I'll tell all my friends about them, I want them to feel how I feel about this music that I've discovered as well. I want this band to be successful, I want everyone to know this band and buy their music.

At the same time when or if this band does become popular then it makes me unhappy that this band is no longer just my own little gem but everyones, it makes me less different to everyone because now everyone knows who this band is. And I can't get a superiority-complex-music-geek buzz out of telling people about this new band I've just heard. Ok so this is pretentious and selfish, but hey that's a bit of who I am. Also lucky for me there is always another unknown band that I'll find amazing next week.

Z
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
07:45 / 14.09.05
Oh dear.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
07:47 / 14.09.05
When REM covered Wire's 'Strange', was that selling out, then, if selling out is recording songs you did not write?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
08:01 / 14.09.05
Bear in mind also that in the fifties, I believe (I could be wrong) the majority of gigging bands didn't write their own stuff, but played a selection of crowd-pleasing faves to get the young people bopping, or hopping, or whatever it was back then. And they were clearly rock'n'roll.
 
 
ZF!
08:20 / 14.09.05
When REM covered Wire's 'Strange', was that selling out, then, if selling out is recording songs you did not write?

No doing covers of another band is not selling out, more of a tribute, at least in my mind. But maybe a few purists would think that.

How is doing covers of another band and singing music written and produced for you different?
I think the latter involves the single mindedness of generating revenue more, while the former is more about the fun of doing a version of a song that you dig. I mean Built to Spill covering Macy Gray's "I Try"? Brilliant! The last single from Girls Aloud? Less so.

Z

Well I hear Girls Aloud are going to try to write their own stuff for their next album. Kudos to them! Doesn't mean I'll like it though. :-)
 
  

Page: (1)23456... 8

 
  
Add Your Reply