Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: Previous123456789
Current Page: 9 of 9
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: 24FPS ()
Date: February 13, 2012 22:45

[www.youtube.com]

Go, you nasal mannered boy, as opposed I guess to the mannered, mawkish way it was sang on record way back when.

Re: I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by: GetYerAngie ()
Date: February 13, 2012 22:58

Quote
Doxa
Quote
24FPS
I remember Keith complimenting Mick on the '81 tour I think it was. He said something to the effect that Mick was actually singing now instead of just barking out the lyrics. I can't hear this mannered nasality, but I do hear a master.
"

People have different opinions how great Jagger's singing in 1981/82 tour was, but whatever it was it was not "mannered nasality". No, he shouted his lunghts out, was raw and edgy. The nasal thing started, pretty much with much vocal coaching during the *Vegas' era. Check this out, and compare (even the first "oh yeah!" tells the he difference):








- Doxa

The latter example truly isn't magnificent, but to call London '82 voice not only "raw" but "edgy" too is an exaggeration. Hampton sure is fine, but SL was not and most of 82 neither. Jagger's live vocals may be of changing quality, but his studio work is generally fine (on ABB often magnificient).

Re: I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: February 13, 2012 23:13

Quote
GetYerAngie
The latter example truly isn't magnificent, but to call London '82 voice not only "raw" but "edgy" too is an exaggeration. Hampton sure is fine, but SL was not and most of 82 neither. Jagger's live vocals may be of changing quality, but his studio work is generally fine (on ABB often magnificient).

Because that Vegas show clip is such a horrible one even in that context I think it was not fair to give a spot on performance from 81/82 era - a'la Hampton - either. But I think even during the bad nights as these the difference in delivery is remarkable between the eras, and that was the thing I wanted to point out. It is question of individual taste how to rate them against each other. But the London 82 is damn "raw" and "edgy" compared to that karaoke singing of the latter clip!

- Doxa

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: February 13, 2012 23:49

Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
Witness
Quote
StonesTod
it's not about the nasality or quality of his voice. it's about the affected mannered and the weirdly adopted vocal personas. please. the man can't help it if he has an upper respiratory infection...but he can help it that he sings like a moron.

My impression is that this is what it might be most about. What some do not like.

I might be completely wrong, of course, but I wonder if it has to do with Mick expressing, not always, but maybe sometimes .... in fact, mixed emotions, with his voice. Sometimes perhaps even self-irony built in as a part of a feeling.

If this is the case, and it tends to be my view, it adds to rather than detracts from the quality of Mick's vocal delivery. It might point to new aspects of the nuances and richness of his singing.

StonesTod is right though...the affectation does spoil some songs. With that said, his vocal does still work well for a lot of songs, but it spoils a lot of them as well.

I wonder if he started singing this way to compensate for the fact that his register deepened with age. Whatever the reason, it's too bad as he can still sing very well, with the right song.

I'll second to these opinions as well. The nasality is a trick to perhaps hide some in loses in his natural voice, and save it too to stand the concerts, but Jagger also seems to love to 'color' his voice with that trick in purpose. It also might make his voice to sound 'younger' as well (a part of that peterpan-deal). Of course, he has used nasal to an extent throughout his career (sometimes with marvellous results; just listen "Winter"winking smiley, but it really took "struggled cat" stage during the last decade or so. I think it was GODDESS IN DOORWAY where I really started paying attention to it, and it started sound annoying. Like he was lost in his mannerisms, or like Tod says, lost in "the affected mannered and weirdly adopted vocal personas", One could also say it simply "over-interpretation" in some cases (think especially of SuperHeavy). In any case, like losing a judgment over his own delivery.

There is nothing wrong in nasal voice an sich if it is delivered well. Young Bob Dylan made an unique instrument of it, and it really added an edge to his vocals by giving a certain sharp significance. It really stands out. Listening his early recordings, it is almost unbelievable how a 20-year old kid can sound so mature and 'experienced'. Of course, it such edgy that it naturally kicks out certain soft-eared people, but that's their loss... Never purported to be easy-listening... And the voice just got better and more nasal with more dangerous wit during his mid-60's period, "Positively Fourth Street", HIGHWAY 61, BLONDE ON BLONDE, the 1966 live shows... Damn that voice could kill people! Sharper and more effective than Keith's blade (by the way, it is funny to listen his version of "The Boxer" in SELF PORTRAIT when he is dueting with himself with his soft non-nasal and nasal voices...). Yeah, Dylan made art of nasal. Then we have Lou Reed, Van Morrison, etc.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-14 00:11 by Doxa.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: Erik_Snow ()
Date: February 13, 2012 23:55

Quote
Doxa
it is funny to listen his version of "The Boxer" in SELF PORTRAIT when he is dueting with himself with his soft non-nasal and nasal voices...). Yeah, Dylan made art of nasal.

thanks for the reminder, been a long time since I listened to that one - yes indeed, that's really a fun one

BTW, that clip of Under My Thumb from 06/25/82 is great, IMO, a lot rougher than Hampton 81, but that doesn't spoil the fun at all

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: Edward Twining ()
Date: February 14, 2012 08:55

Quote
Erik_Snow
Quote
Doxa
it is funny to listen his version of "The Boxer" in SELF PORTRAIT when he is dueting with himself with his soft non-nasal and nasal voices...). Yeah, Dylan made art of nasal.

thanks for the reminder, been a long time since I listened to that one - yes indeed, that's really a fun one

BTW, that clip of Under My Thumb from 06/25/82 is great, IMO, a lot rougher than Hampton 81, but that doesn't spoil the fun at all

Yes, that clip from 82 is great. Jagger's voice sounds incredibly raw, without much of the gruffness, which marred a little the american tour from 81. Jagger just seems to have lost the power his voice once used to possess. His vocals were noticeably much thicker back in the early eighties, with that growl, which for me, was one of the fundamental attractions of his singing, especially within his interpretations of the more rocky songs. My opinion is he's lost the growl due to his voice aging, and the thinner more nasal vocal quality has slowly been making its presence felt, from maybe the turn of the 90's onwards, as his voice has lowered and lost its versitility. First maybe just a little, on VOODOO LOUNGE - 'New Faces' - especially, and even a little on STRIPPED. I remember listening to those albums at the time, and thinking Jagger's voice was beginning to become that bit irritating, but couldn't quite put my finger on why. However, by the release of BRIDGES TO BABYLON, Jagger's voice began to sound quite noticeably different. The growl had most definitely gone, and his voice had thinned out rather considerably. Maybe that does have something to do with his voice getting naturally lower with age, and he just hasn't got the resourses any more to raise his voice enough to really power through those songs. Jagger's speaking voice has lowered considerably too, in the last couple of decades. The over interpretation of many of the later songs may actually be as a result of Jagger's vocals losing its flexibility, although he may also be consiously trying out that more mannered approach. I never found Jagger's voice nasal at all on 'Winter', partly because he had a much lighter, and much more youthful timbre to his voice, and consequently it never risked slipping, so to speak.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: February 14, 2012 12:11

Edward, you don't hear that nasal - singing using the nose to color the voice a bit - in "Winter"? Maybe because it sounds so convincing and natural. But I think the diffence in delivery and tone is quite different if we listen his earlier more 'pure' voice - for example in "Wild Horses" where Jagger sings perhaps more "straight" than ever. What he does in GOATS HEAD SOUP, especially in 'soft' ballads - say "Angie" and "Winter" in particular - is much more 'tricky'. Then some of IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL tracks it starts actually sound mannered and not so convincing at all, "Till The Next Time", "If You Can't Rock Me", etc. Like DandelionPowderman has pointed out, the mannered (rather) thin nasal voice actually made its first appearence in that record. But then on BLACK & BLUE on, probably to UNDERCOVER Jagger somehow used less nose again, and more his big mouth and lunghts, lowered his voice a bit, and growled 'mannishly' more (but then, for example, "Melody Motel" is an expection where nasal is used quite effectively). The B-side of TATTOO YOU is marvellous show of different strong Jagger vocal tones, only "Waitin' On A Friend" goes partly from nose (but that's so thick voiced majestic nasal). But its live version from the following tour are more 'straight', no nose used.

But like I pointed out any nasal-trick done prior 'modern times', is light-weighted compared to the systematic use of "struggled cat" nasal - the emergence of which you I think accurately described during the 90's. So it could be that we have a semantic problem here (you have more 'pure' idea of nasal than I do). But let me repeat, Jagger's natural voice is not that colorful as one might think in listening to "Winter" even though it has naturally a fascinating tone. It was not just as his voice 'naturally' changed along the years; he also consciously developed and improved his instrument, and took influences. Using 'more nose' was one of those.

- Doxa

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: Erik_Snow ()
Date: February 14, 2012 12:29

I agree with Edward, in that I don't hear any nasal singing on "Winter" either, at least not anything that can be compared to the singing style Jagger adapted during the 90s. But I read that Jimmy Miller wasn't satisfied with Jagger's delivery on that exact song, something he (Miller) blamed on Bianca Jagger, and her phone calls to Jagger while Jagger was working on the song...as the phone calls - whatever they were about - distracted Jagger.
I find Jagger's singing on Winter most excellent, myself



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-14 12:30 by Erik_Snow.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: KeithNacho ()
Date: February 14, 2012 12:33

Winter is a masterpiece; nothing related with the latter day Stones

Re: I LOVE THE STONES
Date: February 14, 2012 16:12

Quote
stonesdan60
Quote
Stoneage
Quote
stonesdan60
Quote
Rolling Hansie
Quote
Witness
Let me be counted among those who still enjoy and love the way Mick sings today as well.

Me too

likewise! smileys with beer

You're all into nasality then! eye popping smiley

Maybe my ears are damaged from decades of loud rock and roll but I don't really hear "nasality" in Mick's vocals as of the recent tours. To me it sounds like his voice has naturally deepened with age but I never thought of it as "nasal" in the way one might describe someone like Dylan. I think Mick has been coached to sing in a different way than he did long ago simply for preservation of his voice. Rather than straining at the top of his lungs or reaching for high notes he might not be able to hit, he sometimes changes the melody a bit. He may not sound like he did in '73 but I think he's still a damn good rock singer who knows how to put across the essence of a song.

I posted the same video Doxa posted to provide the nasality bit! Doxa nailed it with his.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-14 16:13 by WeLoveToPlayTheBlues.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: Edward Twining ()
Date: February 14, 2012 17:53

Quote
Doxa
Edward, you don't hear that nasal - singing using the nose to color the voice a bit - in "Winter"? Maybe because it sounds so convincing and natural. But I think the diffence in delivery and tone is quite different if we listen his earlier more 'pure' voice - for example in "Wild Horses" where Jagger sings perhaps more "straight" than ever. What he does in GOATS HEAD SOUP, especially in 'soft' ballads - say "Angie" and "Winter" in particular - is much more 'tricky'. Then some of IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL tracks it starts actually sound mannered and not so convincing at all, "Till The Next Time", "If You Can't Rock Me", etc. Like DandelionPowderman has pointed out, the mannered (rather) thin nasal voice actually made its first appearence in that record. But then on BLACK & BLUE on, probably to UNDERCOVER Jagger somehow used less nose again, and more his big mouth and lunghts, lowered his voice a bit, and growled 'mannishly' more (but then, for example, "Melody Motel" is an expection where nasal is used quite effectively). The B-side of TATTOO YOU is marvellous show of different strong Jagger vocal tones, only "Waitin' On A Friend" goes partly from nose (but that's so thick voiced majestic nasal). But its live version from the following tour are more 'straight', no nose used.

But like I pointed out any nasal-trick done prior 'modern times', is light-weighted compared to the systematic use of "struggled cat" nasal - the emergence of which you I think accurately described during the 90's. So it could be that we have a semantic problem here (you have more 'pure' idea of nasal than I do). But let me repeat, Jagger's natural voice is not that colorful as one might think in listening to "Winter" even though it has naturally a fascinating tone. It was not just as his voice 'naturally' changed along the years; he also consciously developed and improved his instrument, and took influences. Using 'more nose' was one of those.

- Doxa

I believe, Doxa, that 'Winter' was arguably the first major example of Jagger using a sort of theatricality within the way he interpreted a song. You are right in saying that 'Wild Horses' is perhaps Jagger's straightest vocal ballad performance, maybe because the song seemed so eloquent within its written composition, both lyrically and musically, anything more elaborate vocally would have been surplus to requirements. Somehow, and despite the greatness of 'Winter' in being so effectively beautiful, ultimately, and rather epic within its scope, i feel the song as a written composition, is not so nearly as meticulously worked out, and perhaps, for me, Jagger adapts a different personna (a little more camp and less straight) as a way of enhancing what perhaps may have been a less than inspiring composition. Somewhere along the line, and specifically around the GOATS HEAD SOUP - IT'S ONLY ROCK 'N' ROLL - BLACK AND BLUE period, the songs were not quite so meticulously conceived, and i have always believed Jagger attempted within his more mannered vocal interpretations, to make them more interesting. If the songs perhaps didn't stand up especially well in a conventional sense, Jagger would try to find a way vocally of enhancing them. It is interesting to note that in a general sense, the stronger the composition, the less Jagger seems to feel the need to camp it up. My thoughts regarding 'Winter' is almost that it turned out a happy accident, because despite it possessing a somehow less meticulously conceived construction, somehow things come together beautifully, and especially after repeated listens. Some of those other tracks like 'Till The Next Goodbye' were far less successful despite Jagger's vocal efforts. In a sense, Doxa, i agree that Jagger's later vocal mannerisms can very much be seen to begin with 'Till The Next Goodbye' , although Jagger's vocal tone was a little less heavy in those days, and the nasally vocal sound wasn't anywhere near as pronounced.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: 24FPS ()
Date: February 14, 2012 19:33

Jagger has always used 'theatricality' to deliver his vocals. How else could a pimply 20-year old from Dartford slur out that 'He's a King Bee'? It's the same doe eyed guy that lamented on 'As Tears Go By', or the posh singer on the Elizabethan 'Lady Jane'. People act like there's a core Jagger, an immutable spot that is the ideal voice. He's always changed, and until people on this blog started hammering it home, I've never given his voice a second thought.

I like the changes in Jagger. It shows artistic growth. He's a much older man now, bringing that experience to his performances. And that's what they are, performances. Count me in as one who doesn't hear 'mannered nasality'. I hear someone who has worked at their craft for over 50 years and is a true master. I can't wait to hear him sing at the White House. I feel sorry for those poor souls whose ears no longer let them enjoy him. More for me.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: stonesdan60 ()
Date: February 14, 2012 20:14

Quote
24FPS
Jagger has always used 'theatricality' to deliver his vocals. How else could a pimply 20-year old from Dartford slur out that 'He's a King Bee'? It's the same doe eyed guy that lamented on 'As Tears Go By', or the posh singer on the Elizabethan 'Lady Jane'. People act like there's a core Jagger, an immutable spot that is the ideal voice. He's always changed, and until people on this blog started hammering it home, I've never given his voice a second thought.

I like the changes in Jagger. It shows artistic growth. He's a much older man now, bringing that experience to his performances. And that's what they are, performances. Count me in as one who doesn't hear 'mannered nasality'. I hear someone who has worked at their craft for over 50 years and is a true master. I can't wait to hear him sing at the White House. I feel sorry for those poor souls whose ears no longer let them enjoy him. More for me.

smileys with beer

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: Stoneage ()
Date: February 14, 2012 20:39

Is the trial date set yet? Who's gonna lead the defense team? This will be a thriller...

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: Edward Twining ()
Date: February 15, 2012 09:06

An example of Jagger singing nasal



Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: February 15, 2012 09:24

Quote
stonesdan60
Quote
24FPS
Jagger has always used 'theatricality' to deliver his vocals. How else could a pimply 20-year old from Dartford slur out that 'He's a King Bee'? It's the same doe eyed guy that lamented on 'As Tears Go By', or the posh singer on the Elizabethan 'Lady Jane'. People act like there's a core Jagger, an immutable spot that is the ideal voice. He's always changed, and until people on this blog started hammering it home, I've never given his voice a second thought.

I like the changes in Jagger. It shows artistic growth. He's a much older man now, bringing that experience to his performances. And that's what they are, performances. Count me in as one who doesn't hear 'mannered nasality'. I hear someone who has worked at their craft for over 50 years and is a true master. I can't wait to hear him sing at the White House. I feel sorry for those poor souls whose ears no longer let them enjoy him. More for me.

smileys with beer

smileys with beer

although I have to admit the nasality of some songs creates 'less enjoyment' on my part. More for you!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-15 09:38 by treaclefingers.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: Witness ()
Date: February 15, 2012 10:25

Quote
Edward Twining
An example of Jagger singing nasal


His singing nasal , I agree there he does, is in my reception of it part of something more in singing technique, that I am not able to describe. Expressing therebye perhaps a slight psychic pain or embarassment (or something in that vein), I think personally, to very good effect for the song and the feeling it transmits.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: 71Tele ()
Date: February 15, 2012 11:27

Listen to Mick's soulful, natural singing on "Shine A Light" on Exile. (Or any number of tracks from that period). Then listen to something like "Following The River". WTF happened?

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: February 15, 2012 11:29

Quote
Witness
His singing nasal , I agree there he does, is in my reception of it part of something more in singing technique, that I am not able to describe. Expressing therebye perhaps a slight psychic pain or embarassment (or something in that vein), I think personally, to very good effect for the song and the feeling it transmits.

I can see the artistic point in singing nasal - even though I also hear that as a means to hide some weaknesses in the vitality of the voice - but I think in those (artistic) terms Jagger fails big time in "Dancing in The Spotlight". But that's my opinion. That track is one of those tracks I really started paying attention to Jagger's over interpretation by using the nasal, and I just didn't liked it. It went over the top. A bad artistic choice, I would say.

But this doesn't mean that Jagger can't sing greatly anymore. "How Strong My Love Is" from LICKS tour is a wonderful evidence that he can really sing strongly from the throat without typical mannerism. Well, everyone seems to agree with that. But let me put my cards on the table (a smile))... Contra to most - almost everyone - here I think that Jagger's vocal performance in "Following The River" is wonderful. There he uses every goddamn trick, cliche and manner he is infamous these days. But to my ears he puts himself there on the table (a smile again), and ends up sounding wounded and vulnerable; he lets the weaknesses of his voice to be heard - the voice that breaks by the end of the song. Damn, he there expresses something that touches me - That's a kind of 'honesty' I miss in Jagger's voice - that of taking riskies, and just let it go. Yeah, he is a victim of his own mannerisms, of his own singing personas, but I think in "Following The River" he makes that work for him; he uses that as his templete and breaks free, "transcends" himself out of it... Difficult to put in words. But here it is:





- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-15 11:33 by Doxa.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: February 15, 2012 11:44

Tele, I wrote my post without knowing of yours... a funny co-incidence.grinning smiley

- Doxa

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: 71Tele ()
Date: February 15, 2012 12:38

Quote
Doxa
Tele, I wrote my post without knowing of yours... a funny co-incidence.grinning smiley

- Doxa

I know, and a rare disagreement with you. I think the sentiment on "Following The River" is utterly contrived and unconvincing. Again, compare to ballads like "Sway", "Let It Loose" and "Shine A Light" with really take the listener someplace emotionally. I would even argue that Jagger's long descent from natural, soulful singing to mannered, contrived singing started as early as "Til The Next Goodbye", or at least "Fool To Cry" and became close to unbearable in the 2000s...It's interesting that you describe his "tricks" and "mannerisms" in FTR, but they move you. It's preceisely the same tricks and mannerisms that annoy me and make me feel like the sentiment is contrived. A good example of how different people feel different things when listening to music. Perhaps Jagger always used "tricks" of some sort vocally, and I just feel he got away with them more in his earlier stuff, I don't know.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-15 13:09 by 71Tele.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: Edward Twining ()
Date: February 15, 2012 18:54

Quote
71Tele
Quote
Doxa
Tele, I wrote my post without knowing of yours... a funny co-incidence.grinning smiley

- Doxa

I know, and a rare disagreement with you. I think the sentiment on "Following The River" is utterly contrived and unconvincing. Again, compare to ballads like "Sway", "Let It Loose" and "Shine A Light" with really take the listener someplace emotionally. I would even argue that Jagger's long descent from natural, soulful singing to mannered, contrived singing started as early as "Til The Next Goodbye", or at least "Fool To Cry" and became close to unbearable in the 2000s...It's interesting that you describe his "tricks" and "mannerisms" in FTR, but they move you. It's preceisely the same tricks and mannerisms that annoy me and make me feel like the sentiment is contrived. A good example of how different people feel different things when listening to music. Perhaps Jagger always used "tricks" of some sort vocally, and I just feel he got away with them more in his earlier stuff, I don't know.

71Tele, my thoughts are that Jagger's vocals were a lot lighter, and more flexible when he was younger, and because of that, they tended not to irritate. Doxa is correct to a degree with regards to Jagger using a nasal method of singing in places on 'Winter', yet the nasal quality doesn't sound like it would do in more recent years, which is why i don't class it as what's commonly regarded as a typical Jagger style nasal vocal. That classification really came into being, when his nasal vocal adoption became profoundly irritating, as his voice became much lower with age and a great deal more heavyhanded, or overaccentuated. I don't necessarily see Jagger's 70s vocal interpretations as 'tricks', because they never sound especially contrived to my ears. Yes, like any singer, Jagger adapted his voice to suit the nature of whatever he was singing, whether it was in a form of a growling 'rock' voice, or an occasionally more soft styled ballad voice, and also with occasional use of falsetto. I agree with you about 'Following The River'. I find Jagger's voice pretty excrutiating, and it's perhaps a song that may have had potential, if the group had persevered with it back in the day, but in its present form i do find it quite unbearable. What's the consensus with regards to Jagger's more recent interpretation of 'Shine A Light'. Is that also too nasal and overaccentuated, or is the difference simply the fact that Jagger's voice is much lower, and consequently a little more heavy handed? Does his later reading of the song lack sensitivity?








Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: 24FPS ()
Date: February 15, 2012 20:15

eye rolling smiley

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: billwebster ()
Date: February 15, 2012 21:02

Being decidedly a fan of "latter day" Stones music both as a band and solo, I have waited a long time until I speak out.

Sadly, not much unlike many seasoned artists, the Stones in their post-reunification period from "Steel Wheels" onwards, have not made a lot of good choices when it comes to which songs to leave off of albums and which to release as singles. This is especially true for the "A Bigger Bang" album ("She Saw Me Coming" would have been a good single, not "Streets Of Love" or "Biggest Mistake" or "Rain Fell Down"winking smiley, and much less so with "Voodoo Lounge" (on which "Love Is Strong" was a great choice, but "Jump On Top Of Me" got overlooked in favour of "I Go Wild" and "You Got Me Rocking Now"winking smiley.

But since every seasoned artist has had this problem (Elton John having been an especially severe case, but I won't go into detail here), it is forgiven.

However, the main problem of "latter day Stones" is that they did not perform the bulk of their post-reunification songs in concerts. This may have kept them afloat in the marketplace but effectively halted their artistic development despite them toying with Big Beat on "Bridges".

Here's hoping for a great album of new songs next. I know some of you don't believe they will be putting out another, but I sure do hope so even if the title "A Bigger Bang" sounds like "Farewell World".

Goto Page: Previous123456789
Current Page: 9 of 9


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 245
Record Number of Users: 34 on October 26, 2014 00:59
Record Number of Guests: 278 on October 26, 2014 00:55

Previous page Next page First page IORR home