Jump to content

Retromania - Pop Culture's Addiction to its Own Past


Recommended Posts

41aUKHatfFL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

This arrived yesterday morning and I'm already 150 pages in. It's not the attack the title might suggest. Reynolds is 'one of us', someone with an insatiable appetite to acquire more and more recordings. But he's stepped back to think about what is going on.

It is largely focussed on pop/rock (and his youth lies in the 80s) but you find yourself drawing the parallels to jazz, classical etc.

In a nutshell he's exploring how music (and culture in general) has become increasingly obsessed with its immediate past (as distinct from, say, the 19thC Romantics becoming obsessed with the distant Medieval past) and the impact of particularly the internet, You Tube, the iPod etc to make everything available all the time. He's particular interested in the way that the availability of the entire cultural past at the click of a mouse button puts anything new at a huge disadvantage.

Ideas that get discussed here all the time.

Lots of 'ouch!' moments. Like where he talks about people with large musical collections differentiating between being a 'collector' and an 'enthusiast' (former, bad, latter good!). Ouch! Ouch! Ouch!

You can get a taste here:

http://retromaniabysimonreynolds.blogspot.com/

Very good summary here:

http://www.tnr.com/book/review/retromania-simon-reynolds

Edited by A Lark Ascending
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Couldn't it just be that those who prefer yesterday's music (i.e. yesterday's musical STYLES) do so because today's "new" music (or whatever is being touted by the music makers and promoters as the "latest" "must-hear" thing) just does not strike a chord (literally) with them?

Either because to them it does not offer anything that new (who was it who said about a given musical style that "whatever could be said muscially has already been said"? It could be said about many styles, I'd venture to say) or just does not happen to fit their musical preferences. Or maybe those who prefer yesterday's music just are soooo tired of all those fads and that hullaballoo that often boiled down to empty packagings with not the kind of substance that the listeners would have expected. So why force yourself into bending and deforming your musical tastes just to please those who go about touting this or that new musical fad? At any rate - and this may come as a shock to some musical practitioners - "newness for newness's sake" just isn't enough anymore to a certain bunch of listeners. Empereor's clothes effect, I'd say. And I cannot see this is all THAT bad as long as there is enough music to enjoy anyhow.

And let's not forget in some cases the music from the past may also stand for what is perceived as a "better", more easily manageable era (especialy with the benefit of hindsight) when everyday life evolved and progressed (!!) one step after another instead of jumping, spluttering and hopping about in a seemingly unmanageable zigzag course like it seems to do today.

Edited by Big Beat Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's what he's getting at. There's a vicious circle at work - we've never had access to the musical past so completely as now and so the weight of the 'greatness' of the past (it's master musician X's birthday, you MUST play something by him today (even though he can't join in the celebration as he's been dead for 50 years)) is so in front of our vision (and musicians' vision) that it increasingly gets plundered in very obvious ways (previously we all had a very partial vision of that musical past and consequently distorted it which made the influences bend and break into something different). As a result audiences fail to hear anything very new in the present so they retreat into the past when the second hand sounds of today were new and revolutionary. Don't care for contemporary jazz tribute albums? Seek out those obscure 60s avant garde albums (I was doing just that yesterday morning before the book arrived - seeking out some John Stevens/SME albums from the late 60s)!

It's a much more complex argument than my summary but I think he's onto something.

Edited by A Lark Ascending
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the amusing things reading it is that Reynolds pines for the excitement and the new of the 80s. Now in my emotional memory the good-old-days were already well past by then!

Maybe we all see our own youthful years between 15-25 as the Last Days of cultural excitement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect what he's mostly referring to as the past is still way in the future for me. I reckon the reason I'm exploring way old music so much these days is because, simply, I can.

Strictly speaking it's the same here too. When I explore and enjoy (mostly) 30s to 50s music (almost the whole gamut from hillbilly fiddlers to big bands to R&B to west coast jazz to mambo, which makes it a wider stylistic choice than what MOST of TODAY'S music listeners would embrace wholeheartedly anyway) I am still way behind 70s or 80s or 90s music (the resurgence of which is of course being promoted as "retro" again today).

@King Ubu:

I have tried to work my way through that writeup you linked but admit that somehow I cannot see what the reviewer is getting at. Except that this statement really grasps the fact that many revivals are not just revivals or carbon copies of the past: "Hier beschreibt er klug und kompetent, wie Retro die Geschichte nicht nur wiederholt, sondern schärft und in gewissem Sinn sogar nachbessert: Das Revival definiert einen Stil oder eine Ära passgenauer, als es das Original je konnte." ("Here he describes in an intelligent and competent way how retro not only repeats history but renders the past more concrete and in a way improives upon it: The revival definies a style or an era in a more axcurate way than any original could ever have accomplished.")

Which indeed is the essence of many revival music productions, e.g. in 50s rock'n'roll.

Many of today's rockabilly subculture bands at FIRST hearing sound like carbon copies of the old originals but if you listen closer you find that not only are they much superior to MANY of the 50s recordings in the way the musicians master their instruments but they also go out all the way and sharpen and condense the musical contents where the originals either did not dare to go all the way in making uncompromising musical statements lest they sound too shocking in 50s puritan USA or just plainly were too awkward and amateurish in their recorded efforts. And today's musicians achieve this even WITHOUT trying to show off at every second guitar lick that they have listened to their Eric Clapton, Jeff Beck or Rory Gallagher (which would have been inappropriate anyway if you wanted to produce something in the spirit of FIFTIES rock and would only have resulted in a garish stylistic mishmash which is neither flesh nor fowl). Same for those recent "Brit pop" bands. In case you remember that European chart hit "Lemon Tree" of a few years back, wouldn't it have been right at home in 60s British pop charts soundwise too, yet added something new that is hard to pin down but remains within the musical limits set by the style of 60s pop so does NOT sound out of place even under retro aspects?

Of course it's a fine line between perpetuating the music of that era in an "authentic" way by sharpening and condensing its essence beyond pure copying on the one hand and turning the music you are trying to keep alive into a caricature by going all overboard yet grasping only the superficial elements of that style. But those who succeed in sharpening and concentrating an earlier musical style today do manage to create something new while remaining within the credible stylistic bounds of that musical style. So it's not only "retro" ALL the way.

Edited by Big Beat Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reynolds is at pains to emphasise that there is plenty of very enjoyable music today. And he comments on how bands from the past who reform are often much better (technically) at playing than they were in their heyday.

His main point is how pop/rock - which portrayed itself as about 'Now!' - has increasingly become part of the heritage industry (and he broadens this out to culture at large). Of course it's always been with us - I recall in 1970 when I was just getting excited by rock I used to hate radio programmes where a DJ in his 30s played 50's R'nR and went on about how much more exciting it was then. Sha Na Na at Woodstock - only 10 years after the event!

I think we all like to think we explore what we explore out of personal choice. But I suspect we are all creatures of wider social forces in ways we don't like to think. One of the interesting (and uncomfortable) features of reading the book is to be brought up sharp on that.

There are things that jar for me. He follows the party line on the poorer quality of downloads compared with 'real' records or CDs. And I think he generalises about how the iPod makes you more of a grazer than a listener. I'm never tempted to skip around as he suggests and, apart from some playlists that I like to use as a jukebox occasionally, stick religiously to album format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we all like to think we explore what we explore out of personal choice. But I suspect we are all creatures of wider social forces in ways we don't like to think. One of the interesting (and uncomfortable) features of reading the book is to be brought up sharp on that.

It all depends ... If you feel that you already become a "creature of wider social forces" in the very moment that you decide for yourself that the musical fare blaring from your radio day in day out does not satisfy you and then discover some "special-interest" music off the mainstream of Top 40 pop that DOES hold your interest (and often happens to be some musical style from the past) then does this mean that this individualistic or nonconformist attitude is part of those "wider social forces"? I wonder ... After all nobody but I MYSELF forced me to discard the mainstream mass-media music. And the preferences for this or that "niche" music are nothing but my own choice. Especially since there would have been a dozen different retro niche music styles to choose from so what wider social forces could possibly have pushed me towards THAT PARTICULAR retro music I happen to prefer? Those who turn towards some "retro" music style just because this "retro" thing is all the rage might be under the impact of those wider social forces indeed (much as those who always go for the latest "hits") but those people uusally don't last in that niche music.

There are things that jar for me. He follows the party line on the poorer quality of downloads compared with 'real' records or CDs. And I think he generalises about how the iPod makes you more of a grazer than a listener. I'm never tempted to skip around as he suggests and, apart from some playlists that I like to use as a jukebox occasionally, stick religiously to album format.

If you listen primarily to music that even in its ORIGINAL form of release was released in an album format then I'd bet you do. And it does make sense if you perceive the album as a coherent entity. But isn't this totally different in the case of that pop music that has always been geared towards the 45 rpm or "chart SINGLE" format? Albums were and are pretty much of an afterthought there. And I think with downloads or iPods where you can make up your personal "albums" all the time this is even more so. But I cannot really see this as a drawback as long as you really are interested enough to LISTEN to the individual tunes and absorb them instead of just using the string of individual tracks as a sort of background noise (much in the way those old 50s easy listening "Music to do your needlework by"-type LPs were devised).

And besides - in some instances it is quite sensible to stick to an individual track format. Remember how often people have to readjust their listening habits when absorbing music from the 78 rpm era. In its original release form that music often was designed to be consumed one record (2 tracks) at a time, and to many of today's listeners listening to it in a string of 20 tracks on one single CD in one go may produce a feeling of sameness and of lack of variety. So this is the reverse of the "concept album" case where the original way of listening to the music again plays a role in order to be able to appreciate it fully.

So I think the barrier is not between individual tracks vs. albums but rather between intently listening and just "grazing", and you can just as well "graze" on an entire album without really absorbing it IMHO.

Edited by Big Beat Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reminds me of this article from The Onion.

Guy

Very good!

"We are talking about a potentially devastating crisis situation in which our society will express nostalgia for events which have yet to occur," Williams told reporters.

Reynolds points out how the glut of 'Remember the 60s/70s/80s' type programmes over the last ten years reached a ludicrous situation when a 'Remember the Noughties' programme went out before the decade was over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It all depends ... If you feel that you already become a "creature of wider social forces" in the very moment that you decide for yourself that the musical fare blaring from your radio day in day out does not satisfy you and then discover some "special-interest" music off the mainstream of Top 40 pop that DOES hold your interest (and often happens to be some musical style from the past) then does this mean that this individualistic or nonconformist attitude is part of those "wider social forces"?

I don't think it's as simple as either/or. I don't think we're either gullible consumers or independent free spirits - our individuality works an a world of very powerful shaping forces, most of which we hardly comprehend.

Discontent with what comes out of the radio will be a frequent genuine response. I'm sure our attractions to less mainstream music are equally genuine.

But it doesn't happen in isolation. I grew up in a culture where pop/rock was mainly dismissed as ephemeral; things like jazz and classical (more recently country/Americana...if you only like the old stuff!!!) were portrayed as sophisticated, intellectual, worthy of a fine mind. We might not consciously decide 'I'm going to listen to Haydn because then people will think I have a fine mind.' But the build up of those assumptions over time will often steer us in those directions.

I started listening to classical music around the age of 18 because I'd heard various snippets in prog-rock contexts and other bits in my father's random record collection. But I'm sure I also decided to chance exploring because I was subconsciously aware that enjoying classical music was something clever people did!

Edited by A Lark Ascending
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting point about country/americana (if you only like the old stuff). It seems to have come into its own either recently, or as I've grown older. I'm just in my thirties, mind you, but country music, hillbilly music, mountain music, roots bluegrass music, etc. etc. etc. all had a negative connotation growing up through the eighties and nineties. Was it the times, or my age? Seems that was the case with popular country acts too. Judging by their music, they have, and for the most part, continue to distance themselves from thiem cusins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting point about country/americana (if you only like the old stuff). It seems to have come into its own either recently, or as I've grown older. I'm just in my thirties, mind you, but country music, hillbilly music, mountain music, roots bluegrass music, etc. etc. etc. all had a negative connotation growing up through the eighties and nineties. Was it the times, or my age? Seems that was the case with popular country acts too. Judging by their music, they have, and for the most part, continue to distance themselves from thiem cusins.

Guess it was/is a case of geography too. In Europe older coutry music (ranging from 50s "honky tonk/hillbilly bop" right back to what is referred to as "oldtime" country music) has been a subculture of its own for a long time and has amounted to a relatively small but constantly active and apparently viable niche market.

No overly negative connotations to the "hillbilly" term either, as far as I can see. Since "country" music has become so diluted, insipid and "mainstreamized" into something only superficially "rural" or "non-pop" since the 60s, the "hillbilly" term is often employed to describe the "real thing" (i.e. older country styles that are perceived - correctly or not - to be more "sincere" and "handcrafted" styles of country music) in ONE SNGLE broad sweep. Stylistically inaccurate and superficial too, but there you are ... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't groan, but I think the word "postmodernism," nicely covers what's going on in our times in all the arts, whether it be pop, jazz, film, dress, literature, architecture or whatever. No longer do we have the avant garde striving for something new which will outdate the last thing (consider the career of John Coltrane); now it's a case of making new things by delving into the rich selection which the past offers us (consider Alan Barnes's music). Academic analysis of past forms (in the case of the popular arts largely ignored by academia formerly) is also part of the phenomenon and currently under discussion in another thread in relation to jazz.

Edited by BillF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the points he is trying to make is that the current obsession with the immediate past is rather different to previous revivals in that there is so much more access to that past. Historians, archivists etc, artists prepared to seek it out have long had a pretty wide access.

But the onset of the internet has just multiplied the possibilities. And made it available to anyone with a computer and a connection to the web.

We've commented here many times about the availability of the Miles Davis catalogue in the UK. As late as the early 90s you had to look long and hard (imports) to get hold of much of the mid-60s music and a fair bit of the early to mid-70s. I never had a clue (or an inclination) how to obtain bootlegs. Now you can get not just the entire catalogue (and a choice of boxes [sorry!]) but endless live recordings.

Academic analysis of past forms (in the case of the popular arts largely ignored by academia formerly)

Another of his key points. Pop used to be a hear (sic) today, gone tomorrow thing. Now, like paintings or classical music or Egyptian sculptures, it needs to be 'curated'.

*************

My own view is this is not another of those 'end of history' situations. It's a hiatus - humans have a habit of finding their way out of such dead ends.

Edited by A Lark Ascending
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting point about country/americana (if you only like the old stuff). It seems to have come into its own either recently, or as I've grown older. I'm just in my thirties, mind you, but country music, hillbilly music, mountain music, roots bluegrass music, etc. etc. etc. all had a negative connotation growing up through the eighties and nineties. Was it the times, or my age? Seems that was the case with popular country acts too. Judging by their music, they have, and for the most part, continue to distance themselves from thiem cusins.

In the early 70s country in the UK meant something very middle aged revolving around Jim Reeves and the 'Nashville Sound' of the early 60s - maudlin songs with anodyne choirs in the background. There used to be a big festival of country at Wembley each year. The very sound of the pedal steel would send me running for the hills (English hills, not Appalachian).

It was cottoning on to Emmylou Harris, late 60s Dylan, The Band etc (a good 10 years after the even in my case) and the slow seepage of influence of Neil Young and Manassas albums that changed my perspective. But I didn't fully overcome my dislike until the 90s.

Pedal steel guitars still make me faintly nauseous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the early 70s country in the UK meant something very middle aged revolving around Jim Reeves and the 'Nashville Sound' of the early 60s - maudlin songs with anodyne choirs in the background. There used to be a big festival of country at Wembley each year. The very sound of the pedal steel would send me running for the hills (English hills, not Appalachian).

You forgot to mention Slim Whitman which (to my surprise, as discovered during my stays in London in 1975-77) was almost as well-represented as Jim Reeves in the country corners of the record shops. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You forgot to mention Slim Whitman which (to my surprise, as discovered during my stays in London in 1975-77) was almost as well-represented as Jim Reeves in the country corners of the record shops. :D

I'd quite forgotten Slim Whitman. It was all so cardigan and slippers.

To this day I can't abide cardigans. I'm ok with slippers.

George Hamilton IV (or was it III) was always big.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There might b a difference between what the past represents for us, the audience/consumer, and what it represents for musicians/composers (and all artists for that matter).

Most recently Harold Bloom has explored that subject in the "Anxiety of Influence." Before him T.S. Eliot addressed it in the essay, "Tradition and the Individual Talent." These are key works in thinking about the influence of the past on the present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a nutshell he's exploring how music (and culture in general) has become increasingly obsessed with its immediate past (as distinct from, say, the 19thC Romantics becoming obsessed with the distant Medieval past) and the impact of particularly the internet, You Tube, the iPod etc to make everything available all the time. He's particular interested in the way that the availability of the entire cultural past at the click of a mouse button puts anything new at a huge disadvantage.

Interesting topic, Bev, but I'm struggling to be sure I understand and accept the premise. My concept of "pop culture" (in the U.S., at least) revolves around the increasing trend toward a throwaway culture, where everything is increasingly aimed at teens (and younger and younger teens, it would seem). [Just to be clear, I'm focusing on music here.] The idea that anything new is at a disadvantage (let alone a "huge" disadvantage) seems backward to me. I understand that everything from the past seems to be more available than ever, but it doesn't really seem as omnipresent as ever. Back in the day, you turned on the radio or the tv, and there was a lot of overlap (and people seemed to care more about tracing back the connections and the influences and the history of popular music). My kids (and their friends) range in age from 19 to 23. When I was their age, I was not only up to my eyeballs in a variety of excellent contemporary music, I was also curious and interested in where it came from, and wanted to explore the music of the past to every possible extent. I knew a lot of people who were like me in that regard. I'll make a long story short and cut to the chase: If it were not for my input (and to some extent, the "Rock Band" and "Guitar Hero" video games), neither of my kids would have been exposed much to the music of the past, and left to their own devices (no pun intended), they and their friends would likely not have explored or been randomly exposed to even the biggest names from the past (e.g., The Beatles). I could go on and on about this, especially due to the fact that my son has taken up the guitar, and I'm in the process of trying to establish common ground and some bases to work from in teaching him. I have wide musical tastes and interests, and an open mind, and (obviously) a huge reservoir of music from the past to draw from, but his generation hasn't had the exposure- in terms of variety- that ours had.

On the one hand, the author refers to an obsession with the "immediate past" (which makes some sense to me), but the "new" being at a "disadvantage" doesn't necessarily fit with that concept, in my mind. The generalization that pop culture is addicted to its past, unless we're talking about each generation perhaps being addicted to their own (which I wouldn't even necessarily accept as being true) just doesn't make much sense to me. It (clearly) also touches a nerve for me, because I've been increasingly frustrated by knowing how much of our rich musical culture from the past has been stored away in digital form, and marginalized (Youtube is great, but you generally don't enjoy it while driving, or run across it randomly as one used to experience with music on radio and tv). At any rate, I can barely keep up with the idea of trying to give all of this music the respect I think it deserves (and enjoy it all in an ongoing way), just for my own purposes. I don't think today's youth really have much of a clue just how much music has been created in the past, and how much they may miss out on if someone doesn't step in and offer to show them. I don't want to derail the topic by going off on tangents, so I'll stop here for now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a nutshell he's exploring how music (and culture in general) has become increasingly obsessed with its immediate past (as distinct from, say, the 19thC Romantics becoming obsessed with the distant Medieval past) and the impact of particularly the internet, You Tube, the iPod etc to make everything available all the time. He's particular interested in the way that the availability of the entire cultural past at the click of a mouse button puts anything new at a huge disadvantage.

Interesting topic, Bev, but I'm struggling to be sure I understand and accept the premise. My concept of "pop culture" (in the U.S., at least) revolves around the increasing trend toward a throwaway culture, where everything is increasingly aimed at teens (and younger and younger teens, it would seem). [Just to be clear, I'm focusing on music here.] The idea that anything new is at a disadvantage (let alone a "huge" disadvantage) seems backward to me. I understand that everything from the past seems to be more available than ever, but it doesn't really seem as omnipresent as ever. Back in the day, you turned on the radio or the tv, and there was a lot of overlap (and people seemed to care more about tracing back the connections and the influences and the history of popular music). My kids (and their friends) range in age from 19 to 23. When I was their age, I was not only up to my eyeballs in a variety of excellent contemporary music, I was also curious and interested in where it came from, and wanted to explore the music of the past to every possible extent. I knew a lot of people who were like me in that regard. I'll make a long story short and cut to the chase: If it were not for my input (and to some extent, the "Rock Band" and "Guitar Hero" video games), neither of my kids would have been exposed much to the music of the past, and left to their own devices (no pun intended), they and their friends would likely not have explored or been randomly exposed to even the biggest names from the past (e.g., The Beatles). I could go on and on about this, especially due to the fact that my son has taken up the guitar, and I'm in the process of trying to establish common ground and some bases to work from in teaching him. I have wide musical tastes and interests, and an open mind, and (obviously) a huge reservoir of music from the past to draw from, but his generation hasn't had the exposure- in terms of variety- that ours had.

On the one hand, the author refers to an obsession with the "immediate past" (which makes some sense to me), but the "new" being at a "disadvantage" doesn't necessarily fit with that concept, in my mind. The generalization that pop culture is addicted to its past, unless we're talking about each generation perhaps being addicted to their own (which I wouldn't even necessarily accept as being true) just doesn't make much sense to me. It (clearly) also touches a nerve for me, because I've been increasingly frustrated by knowing how much of our rich musical culture from the past has been stored away in digital form, and marginalized (Youtube is great, but you generally don't enjoy it while driving, or run across it randomly as one used to experience with music on radio and tv). At any rate, I can barely keep up with the idea of trying to give all of this music the respect I think it deserves (and enjoy it all in an ongoing way), just for my own purposes. I don't think today's youth really have much of a clue just how much music has been created in the past, and how much they may miss out on if someone doesn't step in and offer to show them. I don't want to derail the topic by going off on tangents, so I'll stop here for now...

I suspect most of us here on this board engaged pretty deeply with the past in the way that you mention in our formative years. But I'm not sure the majority of my peers did - music was just one of the many parts of being a teenager. I suspect that there are equally as obsessive teenagers today but not the norm.

What a lot of teenagers do recognise is a very superficial idea of 'style' - there is a huge interest in the Sixties, for example (and I could bang on about how that period is often given undue focus in schools, largely because a lot of the people who are influential in education now grew up in that period). The kids I teach don't just have their own contemporary musical tastes but a love of things they've found in their parent's collections (Pink Floyd, Led Zepp, the Beatles, Abba and above all Queen. They love Queen).

I'm not sure where Reynolds is going with his argument. I've just finished a long chapter looking at earlier backward looking trends - traditional jazz, rock'n roll revivalism etc and have yet to get to the big conclusions.

One think he only briefly addresses - and might undermine his argument - is the way 'tradition' is actually celebrated in folk musics. If you read the diktats that come down from the UK's leading folk music magazine, folk and world music can only have credibility if it is 'rooted in a tradition' i.e. the past. And I can see that up to a point - I tend to gravitate towards the earthier, messier approach to folk music rather than the more polished or self-consciously modern.

Reynolds is writing from a perspective that views the pop music of the 80s and early 90s as progressive (he's big on the techno/dance culture) and sees himself as someone on the side of constantly breaking new ground. He sees contemporary pop/rock as being a mash-up of past influences rather than a using of the past to strike out in new directions.

I'm reminded of debates you see on jazz boards like this, lamenting the fact that the forward thrust of jazz that seemed a constant until the 60s/70s seems to have vanished and we are now in an era of tributes and revisionism. Classical music fits the bill too - anything that gains a broad listenership seems to rely on going back to earlier styles.

Of course their are avant gardes in jazz and classical that claim (musicians and sympathetic listeners alike) that they are carrying the torch. But they have such a small audience - it's not like when Coltrane or Miles were changing things by the month (and I know even they did not have a mass audience but they were known about to listeners in other fields (rock listeners like myself)); it's a very specialised rock listener who will know of Peter Brotzmann, William Parker or Evan Parker.

Whether his argument holds up or not it's a fascinating read and not remotely academic (apart from the odd reference to cultural studies theory). The thoughts of a passionate music fan.

Edited by A Lark Ascending
Link to comment
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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...